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

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

I don't agree that the law is the problem; the problem is that people think the law should do something the law is not intended to do (provide women with a choice to terminate the lives of their unborn children). The law was intended to address the lack of legislation (an obligation pointed out by the ECtHR) to define the circumstances and processes within which abortion in Ireland can be legally performed. Certain posters took that to mean that in those circumstances abortion must be performed, which was never a notion put forward by the Supreme Court, the ECtHR, or the Oireactas when creating the legislation.

I did not mean that the law is unclear or that it is supposed to justify giving women the right to choose, the law does exactly what it was meant to do. I meant that for doctors to be allowed to abide by the wishes of the mother when it comes to the choice of abortion, then the law would need to be changed. Apologies for being unclear.

aloyisious

@Absolom.

Your quote: I got it from your question "Do you think a medical doctor MUST defer to religion when it comes to saving a woman's life, as distinct from saving a feotus from an untimely end.".
[/QUOTE]

A simple "YES" or a "NO" reply was what I expected to my question and would be satisfied with.

Ref religion, it is very much involved in the debate in abortion here. I didn't involve it in the debate.

Ref "the ass" angle, please play the ball, not the player, deleted the original word (me) used. Ta Absolom, for the advisory.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

A simple "YES" or a "NO" reply was what I expected to my question and would be satisfied with.

I imagine so, but I think if you wish to question me I'm entitled to satisfy myself as to the bona fides of your question before I choose whether to answer. If you're not happy to establish where the question is coming from, I don't mind not bothering to answer it.

aloyisious wrote: »

Ref religion, it is very much involved in the debate in abortion here. I didn't involve it in the debate.

You did however, introduce it into this specific discussion on foot of your liberal reinterpretation of the phrase 'good faith'.

aloyisious wrote: »

Ref "the ass" angle, please play the ball, not me.

I'll forgo the multitude of humorous retorts you're offering, and simply say that not offering such a characterisation might better inure you against having it reflected back.

Cabaal

Do you want a referendum on the Eighth Amendment to be held?

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-eighth-amendment-poll-2612042-Feb2016/

73% voting in favor of one being held, only people against the idea of democracy can vote no in such a poll

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-eighth-amendment-poll-2612042-Feb2016/
73% voting in favor of one being held, only people against the idea of democracy can vote no in such a poll

Surely people against the idea of removing the right to life from the unborn could also vote no in such a poll? Actually, wouldn't people against the idea of democracy be inclined not to vote in a poll?

PopePalpatine

A Michigan hospital, owned by a Catholic religious order, very nearly had their own Savita Halappanavar(s). Five women endured prolonged miscarriages due to the Mercy Health Partners Hospital's policy of following the RCC's doctrine that a termination could not be carried out until either the foetal heartbeat stopped or if the woman was developing sepsis.

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

Surely people against the idea of removing the right to life from the unborn could also vote no in such a poll?

Lucinda Creighton has come out and said holding a referendum would be helpful.

http://www.thejournal.ie/renua-8th-amendment-2140892-Jun2015/

Cabaal

Surely people against the idea of removing the right to life from the unborn could also vote no in such a poll?

They could, but that would still mean they are still against the very idea of democracy taking place. Its sort of like saying you don't want any election to take place because you don't like one of the political partys running in the election.

Being pro-life doesn't mean you are anti referendum as we've seen from Lucinda.

If a pro-lifer wants the 8th to remain they they can simply vote as such in any referendum, its that simple. They have nothing to fear if as they claim a majority don't want the 8th repealed.

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

Lucinda Creighton has come out and said holding a referendum would be helpful.
http://www.thejournal.ie/renua-8th-amendment-2140892-Jun2015/

Which is not to say that she couldn't vote no in the poll, is it?

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

They could, but that would still mean they are still against the very idea of democracy taking place.

Not neccasily; they might simply value peoples lives more than they value the democratic process, which they are otherwise avid cheerleaders for. It's not like you can only like one or the other, is it?

Cabaal wrote: »

Its sort of like saying you don't want any election to take place because you don't like one of the political partys running in the election.

Is it not more like you don't want an election to take place, because despite your love of elections you know if the opposition party get in (however unlikely you think that is) they're going to kill loads of people?

Cabaal wrote: »

Being pro-life doesn't mean you are anti referendum as we've seen from Lucinda.

Indeed; I suspect some people are so confident that repeal won't pass that they actually desperately want a referendum so they can rub the result in the faces of their pro choice adversaries in a most unChristian fashion.

Cabaal wrote: »

If a pro-lifer wants the 8th to remain they they can simply vote as such in any referendum, its that simple. They have nothing to fear if as they claim a majority don't want the 8th repealed.

That's true. A pragmatic pro-lifer however, would do their best to prevent a referendum, to ensure there's as little chance as possible of those deaths occurring...

Canadel

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I hope voluntary euthanasia comes in before I might need it, but no guarantees there either. The RCC will have their say in how I die, whether I like it or not.

You'll suffer for your sins and you'll like it!

PopePalpatine

Canadel wrote: »

You'll suffer for your sins and you'll like it!

[George Takei]Oh my...[/George Takei]

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

Which is not to say that she couldn't vote no in the poll, is it?

Well, she says otherwise, so I'll take her at her word.

Just to be clear, the poll is about the holding of a referendum, not about repealing the 8th.

Absolam

Pherekydes wrote: »

Well, she says otherwise, so I'll take her at her word. Just to be clear, the poll is about the holding of a referendum, not about repealing the 8th.

Didn't she say she wouldn't be opposed a referendum? Being a different thing to being unable to vote no in the poll? So, in fact, she didn't say otherwise.

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It would be an incredible achievement to both repeal the 8th and enact something similar to the UK 1967 Abortion Act here within the next Dail. TBH I wouldn't see it happening short of Labour being the largest government party which obviously isn't going to happen. And even then there is a socially conservative wing within Labour :rolleyes: so even if they had 70 Labour TDs they couldn't count on 70 votes for an Abortion Act.

I turn 45 this year... it's very depressing to think that it's unlikely I will see adequate social change in my lifetime.

Don't give up hope. We had a major change in law here last year because enough people were angry and unhappy at how a minority were able to subjugate another minority by way of the law. The people spoke through the ballot box clearly and unequivocally then changing the constitution and can do it again.

Canadel

aloyisious wrote: »

Don't give up hope. We had a major change in law here last year because enough people were angry and unhappy at how a minority were able to subjugate another minority by way of the law. The people spoke through the ballot box clearly and unequivocally then changing the constitution and can do it again.

I think a referendum on abortion would see a similar youth movement to what see saw during the same sex marriage campaign. #YesEquality #HomeToVote and so on #HomeToChoose. Social media is destroying social conservatism too. A lot of young people have support for parties like AAA/PbP too but obviously don't vote. On referendums though they will as was recently shown. I know abortion is a different ball game but I think the potential for progress is there.

Cabaal

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/susan-cahill-my-abortion-was-not-remotely-traumatic-i-have-no-regrets-1.2542740

Susan Cahill: ‘My abortion was not remotely traumatic ... I have no regrets’
Last month, Susan Cahill shared her abortion experience at a symposium in The Abbey Theatre. This is her story.

Cabaal

"Concerned Christians" doing leaflet drops

Hotblack Desiato

They forgot to mention that SD are in favour of repeal. I can see them doing very well (but only have 14 candidates overall.)

It is very telling that not one of the conservative parties they name can commit to an anti-choice whip.

The Randy Riverbeast

Ironic how they support people being allowed to make their own decisions all of a sudden.

Canadel

Quick question. For those people here who support abortion on demand, does that include a woman's right to choose in the case of the gender of the child or the child having a disability/red hair?

volchitsa

Canadel wrote: »

Quick question. For those people here who support abortion on demand, does that include a woman's right to choose in the case of the gender of the child or the child having a disability/red hair?

Quick question. For those people here who support contraception on demand, does that include a woman's right to use contraception because she's afraid of having a child of a particular gender or hair colour?

Isn't that what "on demand" means, after all?

People are entitled to be unpleasant people if they like, and disliking someone because of their gender or their hair colour is pretty high up on the scale of nasty IMO, but if choosing to have an abortion because you've been raped is considered to be your own business and no-one else's, then clearly abortion is not the equivalent of killing the resulting child. It's ending a pregnancy, which is a different thing. That is because a fetus is not a child, no matter how much the forced birthers try to say it is.

(Though how one would identify a red-haired fetus is a puzzle.)

Kiwi in IE

Cabaal wrote: »

"Concerned Christians" doing leaflet drops

"We want to see stability in our country and a return to Judeo/Christian values that have underpined all of Europe in the past"

They want to return to the past? Well at least they don't have as far to go from Ireland to get there, as they would from other Western Countries.

What part of history do they want to return to I wonder? We are probably in about 1950 now, would the turn of the century suit them? Maybe they would prefer the 19th century or 18th? I quite like the clothes, artwork and architecture from all those periods, but I'm not sure it would be a great idea to go back to times prior to antibiotics, vaccinations, general anesthetics, sanitation and electricity? They would probably quite like to return to a time before scientific discovery made a nonsense out of religious/supernatural explanations for events, but I'm not sure it'd be worth sacrificing the things I mentioned above, just for the sake of ease of ability in maintaining a brainwashed population.

Canadel

volchitsa wrote: »

Quick question. For those people here who support contraception on demand, does that include a woman's right to use contraception because she's afraid of having a child of a particular gender or hair colour?

Isn't that what "on demand" means, after all?

People are entitled to be unpleasant people if they like, and disliking someone because of their gender or their hair colour is pretty high up on the scale of nasty IMO, but if choosing to have an abortion because you've been raped is considered to be your own business and no-one else's, then clearly abortion is not the equivalent of killing the resulting child. It's ending a pregnancy, which is a different thing. That is because a fetus is not a child, no matter how much the forced birthers try to say it is.

(Though how one would identify a red-haired fetus is a puzzle.)

That's all I wanted. And I agree with the rest of it too.

looksee

15,200 people voted No

out of a constituency of just under 119,000

. Your point being?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Quick question. For those people here who support contraception on demand, does that include a woman's right to use contraception because she's afraid of having a child of a particular gender or hair colour?

Isn't that what "on demand" means, after all?

People are entitled to be unpleasant people if they like, and disliking someone because of their gender or their hair colour is pretty high up on the scale of nasty IMO, but 1.if choosing to have an abortion because you've been raped is considered to be your own business and no-one else's, then clearly abortion is not the equivalent of killing the resulting child. It's ending a pregnancy, which is a different thing. 2.That is because a fetus is not a child, no matter how much the forced birthers try to say it is.

(Though how one would identify a red-haired fetus is a puzzle.)

1. It's not any different other than the wording you're more comfortable with using to describe the same end result.

2. See 1.

The question was regarding abortion on demand, not contraception on demand, and by way of answering that specific question, I would suggest it doesn't matter what a woman's reasons are for wanting an abortion, and this is not directed at you personally, but at anyone who thinks they have any right to decide what are or aren't legitimate reasons for an abortion, or whether that woman is nasty or not for whatever reason she decides to have an abortion, should really go away and think about that position.

Kiwi in IE

Canadel wrote: »

Quick question. For those people here who support abortion on demand, does that include a woman's right to choose in the case of the gender of the child or the child having a disability/red hair?

I don't think any woman should have to give officials/health professionals a reason why she has chosen to have an abortion up to a point. I'm not massively comfortable however with later term abortions, my preference is 12 weeks, except in cases of health, life, FFA or life limiting disability. I don't for a minute think this should be black and white however, obviously if a young girl/woman with an intellectual disability/some other very vulnerable woman, doesn't know she is pregnant until after 12 weeks, then of course she should be able to choose to abort. That all gets a bit grey areaish for me, so I would probably support something like the UK abortion laws. I think it should be done as soon as is practically possible, but there are obviously going to be circumstances where it needs to happen despite being later term. I think the ideal situation in good sex/reproductive education so women/girls have the knowledge to, mostly prevent, but also to discover an unwanted pregnancy as early as possible and act on it. Ultimately woman's bodies are their own, and no woman should be forced to have her body used as a life support against her will. If a late term pregnancy is seriously affecting a woman's mental health past the point of viability, then an early caeserean should be preformed. A foetus, at any stage should never be put before a woman's health, physical or mental, unless she chooses to put it first.

I wouldn't have much time for someone who wanted to abort due to red hair or gender, but I don't believe in enforced pregnancy.

volchitsa

Canadel wrote: »

That's all I wanted. And I agree with the rest of it too.

FWIW I actually think it's a little more complicated than that myself, but that would be my bottom line. Either abortion is the same as killing a child or it isn't.

However the gender selection thing also brings in a somewhat related issue, which is that women's lack of a voice in certain communities is why women find themselves requesting a termination for gender.

I do think that's a problem. I just think there are better ways of addressing those issues than more judgmentalism, not to mention the unwanted consequences on other women of a legal ban that is only about showing disapproval of someone's personal beliefs.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

1. It's not any different other than the wording you're more comfortable with using to describe the same end result.

2. See 1.

The question was regarding abortion on demand, not contraception on demand, and by way of answering that specific question, I would suggest it doesn't matter what a woman's reasons are for wanting an abortion, and this is not directed at you personally, but at anyone who thinks they have any right to decide what are or aren't legitimate reasons for an abortion, or whether that woman is nasty or not for whatever reason she decides to have an abortion, should really go away and think about that position.

I've no idea what you think you're saying there, genuinely not a clue what your point is. However on the point of "judging" people, I think you've misunderstood what I was saying.

Lots of people make major decisions for reasons that I would think terrible reasons, whether getting married because they want a party and a white dress, or having a baby because that's what you do. Or because they want to feel validated in some way, or whatever.

Does that mean I think they should be stopped? Well, no. The consequences of trying to micromanage people's lives like that, even if it were possible, would be disastrous. IMO.

I think the same about abortion : there are reasons that I personally think absolutely justified that some others might not, and reasons that I would find insufficient, but that the couple concerned might find absolutely compelling. Since I have come to the conclusion that there are some cases in which pregnancy termination is acceptable, then it seems to me that (at the same term of fetal development) forcing someone else to give birth for reasons I find acceptable is really not my business. Parenthood is far too major a decision to force on someone else.

And now I really have to go, so apols if I don't reply.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

And now I really have to go, so apols if I don't reply.

No worries, my reply can wait till you're back