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

volchitsa

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My point is I see no reason for affording a fetus rights.

Arguments I do see for affording other things rights are not relevant to that point, or this thread.

Suffice to say however I consider Rights to be very heavily and proportionately connected with things like sentience and consciousness. An attribute a fetus not only seemingly lacks, but lacks the structures even required to produce it in the first place.

One of the issues I have with the idea of affording an embryo this so-called "right to life" is why only that right and nothing else? If it has that right (under certain circumstances, why not other rights too?

Let's say it's because the fetus has sufficient human characteristics for us to want to accord it some respect, which is probably a good thing IMO, something like the way we consider it normal to respect a dead human body in a way we don't do with animals.

But a dead human body would never have any rights that required risking any possible harm to a living person. That's the issue I have with the ban on abortion, not that we should "respect life" but that this respect for life may entail causing harm to a living person. I just don't see where the embryo/fetus gets that "right" from.

Its life is not considered important enough to stop IVF clinics from destroying as many as they choose, so it's less important than financial imperatives. So why should it be necessary to force it to harm, however unwittingly, its mother?

nozzferrahhtoo

Absolam wrote: »

What is the argument for affording anyone any rights at any stage of development?

My point is I see no reason for affording a fetus rights.

Arguments I do see for affording other things rights are not relevant to that point, or this thread.

Suffice to say however I consider Rights to be very heavily and proportionately connected with things like sentience and consciousness. An attribute a fetus not only seemingly lacks, but lacks the structures even required to produce it in the first place.

volchitsa

robdonn wrote: »

Fair enough, but that doesn't answer my question, which is also your question. What, in your opinion, is the argument for affording anyone any rights at any stage of development?

None of the examples you give require the constant siphoning of someone else's biological system, that could be seen as a level of autonomy that a foetus lacks. Of course this can apply to other situations, such as some conjoined twins, so it would be silly to base the decision on one factor alone.

A newborn is granted a legally recognised identity by society at the moment of birth and all rights applicable are then applied. As a society we could choose to change this and apply it to the unborn but we don't.

I think it may have been me who introduced the word "autonomous" here. I meant a very specific form of incapacity for life at all outside of another human being's body. Not simply a general dependence on other(s) to avoid risk of death - after all, none of us except possibly survivialists can claim to be able to live without the input of society as a whole. How many here could build their own house, grow enough food, find water even?

If there is a less ambiguous word for that sort of fetal dependence on one particular human being, which no other person can replace, I'm interested, because I don't think I know one.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Actually my sole point was merely to present people with the opinion piece written by Breda. I believe she wrote it for the edification of the reading public. I believe it meant that she see's a feotus with FFA worthy of being allowed a full-term birth so as to be allowed die in a hospice and she see's that as a form of a right. Perhap's I am wrong in that.

In which case, you didn't need to quote my post at all, since your 'reply' had nothing to do with it?

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

I did. She didn't offer any argument for affording anyone any rights at any stage of development that I could see. In fact, the only reference to a right she made at all was "Mothers who continue their pregnancy are rarely lauded as brave. At best, they are patronised. They are told that while their choice might be fine for them, they have no right to impose it on others."

Maybe you should simply explain what you think your point is?

Actually my sole point was merely to present people with the opinion piece written by Breda. I believe she wrote it for the edification of the reading public. I believe it meant that she see's a feotus with FFA worthy of being allowed a full-term birth so as to be allowed die in a hospice and she see's that as a form of a right. Perhap's I am wrong in that.

Absolam

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

To liken a foetus to an newborn baby because a new born baby cannot live independently is absurd. Anyone can look after a new born baby, so if it's parents choose not to, someone else can step in.

Ah... you're stepping away from autonomy to living independently there.
You're right, anyone can look after a new born baby, but it is not autonomous, if no one looks after it, it will die. Robdonn does better in specifying an absolute biological dependence on a specific individual, but I don't think becoming dependent on a potentially larger group of people is actually achieving autonomy, more like a broader dependency.

We definitely do appear to choose to afford rights to individuals as they reach points in their lives that we associate with increasing autonomy, up to the right to own property, vote, marry etc, and we have obviously varied those points through history and in different cultures. Which makes it seem to me that we afford rights at the approximate stage of development that we feel as a society that they might most reasonably begin to be exercised in a manner we consider proper.
So, marriage at 12 has become marriage at 16.
Franchise has gone from males over 21 owning property to all at the age of 18.
So, I end up answering robdonns question before I give nozzferrahhtoo the opportunity (apologies nozzferrahhtoo); it seems to me we afford people rights not based on their personal stage of development, but at an approximate point to where our society feels they can best make use of them; the argument for affording a foetus a right to life is the same as the argument for affording a 16 year old a right to marry; that we as a society feel it is an appropriate time for them to be able to make use of that right.
And like all other rights, we can change our minds about when or if we afford those rights to anyone.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Did you read Breda's opinion piece?

I did. She didn't offer any argument for affording anyone any rights at any stage of development that I could see. In fact, the only reference to a right she made at all was "Mothers who continue their pregnancy are rarely lauded as brave. At best, they are patronised. They are told that while their choice might be fine for them, they have no right to impose it on others."

Maybe you should simply explain what you think your point is?

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

Fair enough, but that doesn't answer my question, which is also your question. What, in your opinion, is the argument for affording anyone any rights at any stage of development?

I have a feeling if I give my opinion before nozzferrahhtoo has the opportunity to give his I'll be distracting from an interesting proposition, so if you don't mind I'll park answering my own question until nozzferrahhtoo has had the opportunity to do so

robdonn wrote: »

None of the examples you give require the constant siphoning of someone else's biological system, that could be seen as a level of autonomy that a foetus lacks. Of course this can apply to other situations, such as some conjoined twins, so it would be silly to base the decision on one factor alone.

I'd agree; autonomy seems a fairly spurious criterion. A breastfeeding newborn could be 'siphoning of someone else's biological system' on the one hand, on the other hand 'dependent exlusivey on a specific individual biological entity' seems a definition of non-autonomous so specific as to be deliberately designed to only include certain people.

robdonn wrote: »

A newborn is granted a legally recognised identity by society at the moment of birth and all rights applicable are then applied. As a society we could choose to change this and apply it to the unborn but we don't.

A legal identity (as opposed to an identity, I think it's important to note you're addressing the former not the latter here), as you say could be granted at any time. Though not all rights applicable are then applied; a person with a legal identity still doesn't acquire a plethora of rights until they become an adult. So since, as you say, it can be granted whenever we please, it's kind of a circular argument; we afford those rights at that time because that's when we choose to grant the facility for those rights. It's not an argument for affording those rights at a point of development, it's an argument for affording rights on the grant of a legal identity (and for the avoidance of well rehearsed argument a legal identity being distinct from a legal entity or legal person).

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I nowhere claimed you were, you have missed my meaning by a country mile. Do keep up, it's not rocket science.

You quoted my post and implied I was measuring things solely in terms of outcomes, then went on to make your point about contraception being relevant because if contraception prevents a pregnancy that otherwise WAS going to happen... "then the outcome is the same". You're deliberately misrepresenting my position to address something I never said -

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?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If one is going to measure things solely in terms of "outcomes" and nothing else..... then by that measure one would, as volchitsa suggests, also have to include contraception. Because if contraception prevents a pregnancy that otherwise WAS going to happen, then "the outcome is the same".

Thankfully however a significant quantity of people seem to measure things like this is more nuanced and in depth terms that merely "outcomes".

What use is contraception to pregnant women who want to have an abortion? And how is the outcome of an abortion for a woman the same as if she had never gotten pregnant?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Irrelevant to my point, which you have missed by a country mile. Do keep up, it's not rocket science. I am pointing out that it is people who do not want to refer to a fetus as a fetus who are distancing themselves from reality. Not the people who do.

How is anyone distancing themselves from reality by using the terms used in the Constitution and the POLDPA? Both refer to the unborn -

“unborn”, in relation to a human life, is a reference to such a life during the period of time commencing after implantation in the womb of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the life from the body of the woman;

“woman” means a female person of any age.

Slightly more nuanced and in depth terms than your attempts to restrict people to refer to the unborn as the foetus. In a similar fashion, the legislation uses the term "woman" to refer to female person of any age.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which is a point that misses being relevant by a country mile as there is no reason to be concerned with the perspective of reality from the view of a fetus. Nor have you provided one. Anywhere. ever. And the point also still remains that from the perspective of a fetus who would have been conceived other that due to contraception, the "outcome is the same". A fact which shows just what a non-point your "point" actually is.

You notice that I haven't provided a reason to be concerned with the perspective of reality from the view of a fetus, so what point are you addressing exactly? Who's missing the point now? You're just demonstrating with your non-point that you have missed my point, or you're seeking to address a point I never made. I never made any mention about reality from the perspective of a fetus.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Measuring things purely in the reducationist terms of results and outcomes, will get the discussion nowhere. It's not rocket science. It is just prevention of people getting away with empty semantics and their attempts to avoid arguing a position by hiding behind terminology.

Maybe you do get my point, because you just made my point for me.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I said "lets not" do it. I was not referring to anyone actually doing it. You have missed my meaning by a country mile. Do keep up, it's not rocket science.

So you're suggesting we not do something that nobody was doing anyway? I definitely missed the point there then, because you don't appear to have one, much less at least trying to make a point that's actually relevant to the discussion.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But you errr dangerously close to it with reductionist and empty non-points about results from the perspective of a fetus. You certainly are not offering anything of any utility or relevance by pointing out that abortion results in a dead fetus. I would guess most, if not all, people posting on this thread know that already. So what you think pointing it out gains is opaque to me and, I suspect, to you too.

I haven't made any point at all about the results from the perspective of a fetus. The point that abortion results in a dead fetus is from my own perspective, and the reason I pointed it out was because it was in relation to the discussion of abortion as a whole, and acknowledging the reality of the outcome of abortion. Talking about contraception when a woman wants an abortion is completely irrelevant, and the outcomes of contraception and abortion are certainly not the same. I'm almost certain though in your attempts to remain obtuse as possible you'll avoid the point again and go off on another tangent rather than address what's written in front of you.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You do have an MO of pretending that people who do not agree with, or find utility in, your points must have missed them or failed to understand them. The exact opposite of that is true in reality however. Understand and got your points perfectly well thanks all the same, they are just ranging between totally wrong and entirely irrelevant.

You clearly demonstrate that you haven't understood my point at all, and so far rather than address my points that I have made, you appear to be more concerned with addressing points I haven't made! What's that about? So far you haven't written anything remotely relevant to rebutting my points, but rather you appear to have chosen to reply with immature nonsense. I'm not seeing a whole lot of critical thinking going on tbh,

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We are all well aware of what we are arguing over thanks all the same. And when it comes down to it what we are arguing over is the rights, if any, of a fetus. And people who call a fetus a fetus, not the ones who refuse to do so in terms of evocative but empty terms like "unborn child" are the ones hiding from the reality of it.

Well it might come down to arguing the rights if any of a fetus for you. But it doesn't for me. I'm perfectly happy to go with the ECHR's opinion on the matter -

Under European law, fetus is generally regarded as an in utero part of the mother and thus its rights are held by the mother. The European Court of Human Rights opined that the right to life does not extend to fetuses under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), although it does not confer on the European Court of Human Rights the authority to impose relevant laws on European Union member states. In H. v. Norway, the European Commission did not exclude that "in certain circumstances" the fetus may enjoy "a certain protection under Article 2, first sentence". Three European Union member states (Ireland, Hungary and Slovakia) grant fetus the constitutional right to life. The Constitution of Norway grants the unborn royal children the right of succession to the throne. In English common law, fetus is granted inheritance rights under the born alive rule.

Just like I'm perfectly amenable to anyone who isn't a medical practitioner referring to the fetus as the unborn, or an unborn child, or whatever other terms they want to use. I'll still understand what they're talking about, and I won't get pissy about it because I'm more concerned with the bigger picture - increasing understanding of abortion and what it means in society, rather than pissing and moaning because someone isn't using the right terminology that suits me.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The real reality that should be front and center of discussion on the issue of abortion is that no one, least of all anyone on this thread, has erected a single coherent argument for affording a fetus any rights at all before certain stages of development. And in the TOTAL absence of such arguments.... there is therefore no basis for opposing abortion at those stages.

You've mentioned before that you would afford a fetus certain rights at a certain stage of development, but that isn't the reality that should be front and center of the discussion on the issue of abortion at all IMO. That's how we ended up with the piecemeal legislation we currently have in place where abortion is only permissible in terms of a threat to the woman's life from suicide. Arguing for circumstances including rape and FFA is just more kicking the can that little bit further down the road, when what should actually be legislated for, and what should actually be front and centre of any discussison regarding the issue of abortion is that there should be no circumstances a woman should be denied an abortion if that is what she wants.

I've seen plenty of coherent arguments against this position, so claims that there are none is to deny the reality that there have been coherent arguments made against abortion. The onus is on the people making an argument for abortion to make a coherent argument, because otherwise the law will remain as it is in the absence of any compelling argument to legislate for abortion.

Kiwi in IE

To liken a foetus to an newborn baby because a new born baby cannot live independently is absurd. Anyone can look after a new born baby, so if it's parents choose not to, someone else can step in.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

You quoted my question and followed with your piece from Breda saying "Maybe this opinion-piece by Breda O'Brien..".
It had all the appearance of a response to the question but perhaps you intended something else?

Did you read Breda's opinion piece?

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

Well, nozzferrahhtoo seems to think there is no argument for affording a fetus any rights at all before certain stages of development; which suggests he thinks there is an argument for affording someone some rights at some stages of development. I'm wondering what he thinks it is.

Fair enough, but that doesn't answer my question, which is also your question. What, in your opinion, is the argument for affording anyone any rights at any stage of development?

Absolam wrote: »

How autonomous? Neither newborns nor the aged (and various situations inbetween) are autonomous, yet we afford them rights.

None of the examples you give require the constant siphoning of someone else's biological system, that could be seen as a level of autonomy that a foetus lacks. Of course this can apply to other situations, such as some conjoined twins, so it would be silly to base the decision on one factor alone.

Absolam wrote: »

As for identity;does a newborn have any more identity than a foetus? How exactly do you quantify identity?

A newborn is granted a legally recognised identity by society at the moment of birth and all rights applicable are then applied. As a society we could choose to change this and apply it to the unborn but we don't.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

??????

You quoted my question and followed with your piece from Breda saying "Maybe this opinion-piece by Breda O'Brien..".
It had all the appearance of a response to the question but perhaps you intended something else?

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

I give up, what is it?

Well, nozzferrahhtoo seems to think there is no argument for affording a fetus any rights at all before certain stages of development; which suggests he thinks there is an argument for affording someone some rights at some stages of development. I'm wondering what he thinks it is.

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm not too sure either, but at a guess I'd say autonomous existence and identity might be part of the minimum requirements.

How autonomous? Neither newborns nor the aged (and various situations inbetween) are autonomous, yet we afford them rights. As for identity;does a newborn have any more identity than a foetus? How exactly do you quantify identity?

volchitsa wrote: »

Certainly the lack of same seems to be the reason why the unborn twins killed in the Omagh bombs aren't counted as the youngest victims - their "big" sister is the youngest official victim, at 18 months of age.

I don't think the lack of either was ever cited as a reason why the unborn twins killed in the Omagh bombs aren't counted as the youngest victims, was it? That sounds a bit made up. Age is (traditionally) counted from day of birth, not having been born how could they be counted as younger than anyone else? Not having been born, they could not be counted amongst those who died, could they? I don't see where autonomy or idendity came into it at all.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

How is that an argument for affording anyone any rights at any stage of development?

??????

volchitsa

robdonn wrote: »

I give up, what is it?

I'm not too sure either, but at a guess I'd say autonomous existence and identity might be part of the minimum requirements.

Certainly the lack of same seems to be the reason why the unborn twins killed in the Omagh bombs aren't counted as the youngest victims - their "big" sister is the youngest official victim, at 18 months of age.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

What is the argument for affording anyone any rights at any stage of development?

I give up, what is it?

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Maybe this opinion-piece by Breda O'Brien... (not that I agree with her view of the term 'fatal foetal abnormality') Breda O’Brien: ‘Fatal foetal abnormality’ is a hurtful and damaging term'. Rightly or wrongly. I get the impression that Breda think's a feotus with fatal foetal abnormality should be allowed go to full-term birth and then put into a hospice to die as nature allows.

How is that an argument for affording anyone any rights at any stage of development?

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

What is the argument for affording anyone any rights at any stage of development?

Maybe this opinion-piece by Breda O'Brien... (not that I agree with her view of the term 'fatal foetal abnormality') Breda O’Brien: ‘Fatal foetal abnormality’ is a hurtful and damaging term'. Rightly or wrongly. I get the impression that Breda think's a feotus with fatal foetal abnormality should be allowed go to full-term birth and then put into a hospice to die as nature allows.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/breda-o-brien-fatal-foetal-abnormality-is-a-hurtful-and-damaging-term-1.2550033

Absolam

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The real reality that should be front and center of discussion on the issue of abortion is that no one, least of all anyone on this thread, has erected a single coherent argument for affording a fetus any rights at all before certain stages of development. And in the TOTAL absence of such arguments.... there is therefore no basis for opposing abortion at those stages.

What is the argument for affording anyone any rights at any stage of development?

The Black Oil

G'wan Ireland.

Irish Times

Ireland has not paid enough attention to women and childbirth, and our maternity hospitals are “falling down”, according to the Master of the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin.

“I believe we did not pay enough attention to birth in this country. It was a women’s issue. There’s a tendency to turn off for women’s issues, but here’s the thing: everybody is born and women’s issues matter,” said Dr Rhona Mahony, the first female master of the hospital on Holles Street.

“When you look at it, we have a third the number of doctors we should have, we’re really short on midwives in my hospital, and the Rotunda is the same. And we have these old buildings that have changed very little.”

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wasn't referring to the part of her post regarding contraception.

I nowhere claimed you were, you have missed my meaning by a country mile. Do keep up, it's not rocket science.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The reality I was referring to is the termination of human life.

Irrelevant to my point, which you have missed by a country mile. Do keep up, it's not rocket science. I am pointing out that it is people who do not want to refer to a fetus as a fetus who are distancing themselves from reality. Not the people who do.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point I'm making (and the point that still stands), is that whatever way a person wants to refer to it, doesn't change the fact that the outcome for the foetus, for the unborn, for the unborn child, is the same - they're dead.

Which is a point that misses being relevant by a country mile as there is no reason to be concerned with the perspective of reality from the view of a fetus. Nor have you provided one. Anywhere. ever. And the point also still remains that from the perspective of a fetus who would have been conceived other that due to contraception, the "outcome is the same". A fact which shows just what a non-point your "point" actually is.

Measuring things purely in the reducationist terms of results and outcomes, will get the discussion nowhere. It's not rocket science. It is just prevention of people getting away with empty semantics and their attempts to avoid arguing a position by hiding behind terminology.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We're not? I don't know where you picked that up from as there's a whole thread going on here

I said "lets not" do it. I was not referring to anyone actually doing it. You have missed my meaning by a country mile. Do keep up, it's not rocket science.

But you errr dangerously close to it with reductionist and empty non-points about results from the perspective of a fetus. You certainly are not offering anything of any utility or relevance by pointing out that abortion results in a dead fetus. I would guess most, if not all, people posting on this thread know that already. So what you think pointing it out gains is opaque to me and, I suspect, to you too.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point: You missed it, by a country mile.

You do have an MO of pretending that people who do not agree with, or find utility in, your points must have missed them or failed to understand them. The exact opposite of that is true in reality however. Understand and got your points perfectly well thanks all the same, they are just ranging between totally wrong and entirely irrelevant.

We are all well aware of what we are arguing over thanks all the same. And when it comes down to it what we are arguing over is the rights, if any, of a fetus. And people who call a fetus a fetus, not the ones who refuse to do so in terms of evocative but empty terms like "unborn child" are the ones hiding from the reality of it.

The real reality that should be front and center of discussion on the issue of abortion is that no one, least of all anyone on this thread, has erected a single coherent argument for affording a fetus any rights at all before certain stages of development. And in the TOTAL absence of such arguments.... there is therefore no basis for opposing abortion at those stages.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If one is going to measure things solely in terms of "outcomes" and nothing else..... then by that measure one would, as volchitsa suggests, also have to include contraception. Because if contraception prevents a pregnancy that otherwise WAS going to happen, then "the outcome is the same".

Thankfully however a significant quantity of people seem to measure things like this is more nuanced and in depth terms that merely "outcomes".

I wasn't referring to the part of her post regarding contraception. The semantics I was referring to is this in bold:

volchitsa wrote: »

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.)

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Errrrr it is a fetus. So the people NOT accepting that term are the ones "distancing themselves from reality". Not the other way around as you pretend here.

The reality I was referring to is the termination of human life. Some people refer to it as the foetus, some people refer to it as the unborn, some people refer to it as the unborn child, etc. The point I'm making (and the point that still stands), is that whatever way a person wants to refer to it, doesn't change the fact that the outcome for the foetus, for the unborn, for the unborn child, is the same - they're dead. It's not rocket science, it's simply semantics and an attempt to argue with whatever terminology suits their position.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet discussing merely "outcomes" and little else is very reductionist so let's not do that.

We're not? I don't know where you picked that up from as there's a whole thread going on here, some posters are discussing outcomes such as the Savita Halappanavar case, some people are discussing the outcomes of their own experiences, some people are discussing from conception to termination. Some people are discussing social attitudes. Some people are discussing the current legal framework of abortion and the lack of abortion services in Ireland... I don't see anyone discussing "merely outcomes"?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then by all means get the terminology right. Such as not accusing someone of calling a spade a spade, or a fetus a fetus, as being the ones "distancing themselves from reality" when the exact opposite is true.

The point:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I absolutely detest the politics that surrounds the issue, and I hate some of the nonsense terminology and spin used by anyone to try and make out like they're in the right and everyone else is wrong, or anyone who doesn't align with them is the enemy and all the rest of that nonsense. Those types of people (not specifically aiming this at you volchista, but it feels like it sometimes), seem to be more taken up with flinging shìt at each other, than remembering the reality of, or being mindful of, what they're actually arguing over.

You missed it, by a country mile.

Cabaal

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Pro-life advocates have a tendency to adopt a rather blinkered view of public opinion, choosing to see things only as they want them to be (just as you did in the gay marriage thread too). The reality, however, is usually different.

Not so much blinkered but more so are willing to ignore hard facts, figures and will often outright lie in order to support their viewpoint. Just business as usual really.

oldrnwisr

frostyjacks wrote: »

Watching the election coverage over the last few weeks, I'm not seeing any desire amongst the general population to change the status quo,

Really? It's just that the facts don't bear out that observation.

A 1997 Irish Times/MRBI poll found that 18% believed that abortion should never be permitted, 77% believed that it should be allowed in certain circumstances (this was broken down into: 35% that one should be allowed in the event that the woman's life is threatened; 14% if her health is at risk; 28% that "an abortion should be provided to those who need it") and 5% were undecided.
A September 2004 Royal College of Surgeons survey for the Crisis Pregnancy Agency found that, in the under-45 age groups, 51% supported abortion on-demand, with 39% favouring the right to abortion in limited circumstances. Only 8% felt that abortion should not be permitted in any circumstances.[41]
A September 2005 Irish Examiner/Lansdowne poll found that 36% believe abortion should be legalised while 47% do not.[42]
A June 2007 TNS/MRBI poll found that 43% supported legal abortion if a woman believed it was in her best interest while 51% remained opposed. 82% favoured legalisation for cases when the woman's life is in danger, 75% when the foetus cannot survive outside the womb, and 73% when the pregnancy has resulted from sexual abuse.[43]
A January 2010 Irish Examiner/Red C online poll found that 60% of 18- to 35-year olds believe abortion should be legalised, and that 10% of this age group had been in a relationship where an abortion took place. The same survey also showed that 75% of women believed the morning-after pill should be an over-the-counter (OTC) drug, as opposed to a prescription drug.[44]
A September 2012 Sunday Times/Behaviour and Attitudes poll of 923 people showed that 80% of voters would support a change to the law to allow abortion where the life of the woman was at risk, with 16% opposed and 4% undecided.[45]
A November 2012 Sunday Business Post/Red C poll of 1,003 adults showed that 85% of voters would like the government to "Legislate for the X case, which means allowing abortion where the mother's life is threatened, including by suicide", with 10% opposed and 5% undecided. The same poll also found that 82% of voters supported "A constitutional amendment to extend the right to abortion to all cases where the health of the mother is seriously threatened and also in cases of rape", and 36% of voters supported "A constitutional amendment to allow for legal abortion in any case where a woman requests it". In addition, 63% of voters also supported "A constitutional amendment to limit the X case, by excluding a threat of suicide as a grounds for abortion, but still allowing abortion, where the mother's life is threatened outside of suicide".[46][47]
A January 2013 Paddy Power/Red C poll of 1,002 adults found that 29% of voters believed that there should be a constitutional amendment to allow abortion "in any case where the woman requests it". 35% supported legislating for the X case allowing for abortions where the life of the mother is at risk, including from suicide. 26% supported legislating for the X case but excluding suicide and 8% believed no legislation at all was necessary.[48]
A January 2013 Sunday Times/Behaviour and Attitudes poll of 916 voters found that 87% would support legislation to provide abortion where the woman's life was in danger for reasons other than threat of suicide, 80% would support legislation to provide abortion where there was a foetal abnormality meaning the baby could not survive outside of the womb, 74% would support legislation to provide abortion where the pregnancy was a result of rape, and 59% would support legislation to provide abortion where the woman displayed suicidal feelings. Overall, 92% supported allowing abortion in one of these four circumstances, while 51% supported allowing abortion in all four circumstances.[49]
A February 2013 Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll of 1,000 voters in face-to-face interviews in all constituencies found that 84% felt that abortion should be allowed when the woman's life is at risk, 79% felt that abortion should be allowed whenever the foetus cannot survive outside the womb, 78% felt that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest, 71% felt that abortion should be allowed where the woman is suicidal as a result of the pregnancy (the X case result), 70% felt that abortion should be allowed when the woman's health is at risk, and 37% felt that abortion should be provided when a woman deems it to be in her best interest.[50][51]
A June 2013 Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll of 1,000 voters in face-to-face interviews in all constituencies found that 75% were in favour of the government's proposed legislation (the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill 2013), with 14% opposed and 11% choosing "Don't know". Furthermore, 89% felt that abortion should be allowed when the woman's life is at risk, 83% felt that abortion should be allowed whenever the foetus cannot survive outside the womb, 81% felt that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or abuse, 78% felt that abortion should be allowed when the woman's health is at risk, 52% felt that abortion should be allowed where the woman is suicidal as a result of the pregnancy, and 39% felt that abortion should be provided when a woman deems it to be in her best interest.[52]
A September 2014 Sunday Independent/Millward Brown poll found that 56% of voters were in favour of holding a referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, with 19% against and 25% undecided. In addition, 60% of voters were in favour of allowing abortion where there is a threat of the woman's suicide, 69% when the pregnancy arose as the result of rape, 72% when there is a risk to the woman's life (other than suicide) and 68% where there is a threat to the woman's long-term health. When it comes to allowing abortion "for other reasons", 34% are in favour, 38% opposed and 20% saying "it depends".[53]
A January 2016 Newstalk/Red C poll found that 78% of voters were in favour of allowing abortion in cases when the pregnancy arose as the result of rape or incest, 76% when there is a fatal foetal abnormality, 61% when there is a significant foetal disability or non-fatal foetal abnormality, 59% when the pregnant woman has suicidal feelings as a result of the pregnancy and 41% in any circumstances felt necessary by the pregnant woman.

Pro-life advocates have a tendency to adopt a rather blinkered view of public opinion, choosing to see things only as they want them to be (just as you did in the gay marriage thread too). The reality, however, is usually different.

Cabaal

http://www.thejournal.ie/hillary-clinton-savita-halappanavar-briefing-2623223-Feb2016/

HILLARY CLINTON WAS TOLD about the controversy surrounding the death of Savita Halappanavar before visiting Ireland in December 2012, her most recently released emails show.

Kiwi in IE

frostyjacks wrote: »

Can you kindly tell your mother that Ireland has a lower infant mortality rate than NZ? You would be taking a greater risk by having a baby over there.

I don't think that will placate her since she knows that if I'm sexually assaulted here and become pregnant as a result, this country would force me to continue with the pregnancy (not that I would), or if my long term health was at risk, I needed chemotherapy etc, the choice whether to terminate a pregnancy to receive the treatment in the safest time frame would not be my mine, and if I had a pregnancy where the foetus was not going to survive, I would have to continue regardless. Also if I was pregnant and began to miscarry, the cessation of the foetal heartbeat would be considered more important than any risk to my health. In all of the above situations I would go to England, if I was able, but in the miscarrying situation that would probably not be practical.

Call me Al

frostyjacks wrote: »

Like I said, human error, not our laws. Our services are good, it's disingenuous to try and run them down. Why don't mothers emigrate then, if we're so backwards here? The opposite is actually true; people are coming here to start families.

Our law is leading to these errors being made. Her consultant interpreted the law as she did and the consequences were horrific. The guidance by The Masters in the maternity units have requested this be repealed to allow for proper care of the woman presenting to them. The very fact that medical professionals are having to go against best medical practice to wait until the threat is substantial enough to the woman's life is unacceptable.
This should be a medically guided decision between a woman and her medical team. The fact that it isn't has led us to the path we are on today.
Edited to add: how this is still even being debated in 2016 is sickening.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

Like I said, human error, not our laws. Our services are good, it's disingenuous to try and run them down. Why don't mothers emigrate then, if we're so backwards here? The opposite is actually true; people are coming here to start families.

It's not running anything down to say the maternity system here removes the right to informed consent from pregnant women because of the eighth amendment. Meaning I'm reluctant to be pregnant here again following a hit and miss experience of the services here both times.

nozzferrahhtoo

frostyjacks wrote: »

Why don't mothers emigrate then, if we're so backwards here? The opposite is actually true; people are coming here to start families.

Maybe because people do not mediate decisions based on one single attribute? But as an overall picture as a whole?

We may be backwards on some issues, but that is not cause to act like you suggest and simply throw your hands up and surrender or retreat. It is cause to work harder on those issues and improve them.

There are plenty of reasons to move to Ireland to settle down and have a family. That does not mean there are not ALSO many issues to work on and improve there too.