Do you think a referendum on abortion would be passed?(not how you'd vote)

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Why would they be arrested for something that is not currently a crime? If someone aquires an illegal abortion they should absolutely be arrested, as should the person who performed it, and prosecuted. If someone tries to throw themselves down the stairs to abort their baby then they should be arrested under the mental health act. I don't really see your point here.

Women who have ordered abortion pills and taken them in Ireland have committed a crime though.

So should they be tried and imprisoned if they don't have a good enough excuse?

And what would you consider a good enough excuse to be? Extreme distress?Hardly good enough for any other kinds of murder, is it?

You are just ignoring the point. I very much doubt you've been out protesting every decision the last government made that you did not agree with. Does this mean you agreed with them all? No. Protest is not the only way to disagree with something.

Whatever suits you to ignore. But it's hard to discuss something when you continuously make reference to the entire pro life movement as if they are one person yet exclude everyone who doesn't suit your point by reference to geography. There are people in Ireland who oppose IVF, Stem cell treatment and other similar operations. They just aren't very prevalent.

Well actually it was you who presumed to speak for the majority of the pro-life movement, lending them a view you then later said you didn't yourself hold. So I don't know why you're objecting to me referring to the same group as holding broadly similar views on the subject. I'm going by what you claimed to be the case.

As for objecting to different things, that is very different from not objecting to a very slightly different version of the same thing.

Especially when one of the two actions is considered as murder (or tanamount to, and currently punishable by 14 years in jail) and the other as a mere commercial transaction. And with no explanation as to what could justify having such radically opposed legal status for them.

That's not a correct analogy. A vegan tucking into lunch would be the equivalent of a pro lifer getting an abortion. The equivalent to what you are talking about is more like a vegan who has dinner with others who eat meat but doesn't call them murderers.

Except I didn't claim they were the same thing, the point there was why one might choose to disbelieve someone's claims about themselves when their actions contradict their own claims. The self declared Vegan eating a Big Mac is not in any way like a pro-life activist in his actions, but his claims are similarly implausible, because of his own actions.

About 12 weeks. My opinion is based on my understanding of development of a fetus from what I have read and experienced. I'm open to being convinced otherwise but until that time I see no reason why I would vote any way that would jeopardise what I consider to be a human life.

Sure, fair enough.

Mind, I've been called a baby killer for saying I was ok with abortion up to at least 12 weeks, so I'm glad to hear the debate has moved on and that I'm now pro-life as well as pro-choice.

No, I just don't see the difference when it comes to this debate.

You're back to the argument about not being able to object to one thing unless you object to other unrelated matters.

But it was you who associated two unrelated matters here, with your claim that pro-life opposition to abortion was based on attachment to social justice. That's an empty claim unless you can tell us exactly how a ban on abortion increases social equality - especially when the evidence available says exactly the opposite. Here for example: http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/11/13/1183231/denying-abortion-poverty/

So if you could at least show some other examples of how the pro-life movement has a broader attachment to social equality you might have some grounds for that claim. Otherwise you're just making a vague aspirational claim that you haven't backed up in any way.

jeamimus wrote: »

If you don't consider a conceptus or early foetus is a valid human life, then all reasons are acceptable.
The only reason to consider a conceptus or early foetus a valid human life is religious belief.
And thats fair enough for the believers to apply to themselves, but not to the rest of society.

That's not quite correct. The ECHR considers a conceptus, or an early foetus, a valid form of human life, from an ethical and legal perspective. The ECHR opined that the unborn has no automatic right to life, but under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the unborn is granted some protections, and the European Courts make special exemptions for countries like Ireland where the unborn is granted to have a right to life (this was negotiated under the Maastricht Treaty). There are many people who argue for foetal rights from a human rights perspective, not from a religious perspective at all. I've already mentioned that according to the ECHR, people have every right to apply their morality to the rest of society when they're exercising their democratic right to vote in a referendum on a Constitutional change because it's a matter of public interest.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Why would you assume that anyone who would try to bring on a misscarraige like that would automatically be suffering mental health issues? Can't you understand that for some person who is trapped in a situation of a crisis pregnancy, this action might be sane, and logical to them. We're lucky that we don't see much of this kind of thing in this country because very desperate people will usually find a way to get to England or to get pills, but it happens commonly in other countries, and the women are very much sane.

Well the reason they could be incarcerated in a psychiatric facility under the Mental Health Act is because it can be demonstrated that by their actions they present either a danger to themselves or to others. This was successfully argued in the Miss Y case which led to a woman being incarcerated and forced to give birth against her will. I don't agree with the argument, but it's entirely possible it could happen again even if the 8th amendment is repealed, because there was no indication from any of the main parties in the General Election as to the wording of any possible future legislation in the event that the 8th amendment is repealed. As I said earlier in the thread, the Irish Government (pick your party really, they'll all avoid legislating for abortion equally), will drag the issue on for as long as they can possibly get away with while the option is available to travel abroad to avail of an abortion

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's not quite correct. The ECHR considers a conceptus, or an early foetus, a valid form of human life, from an ethical and legal perspective. The ECHR opined that the unborn has no automatic right to life, but under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the unborn is granted some protections, and the European Courts make special exemptions for countries like Ireland where the unborn is granted to have a right to life (this was negotiated under the Maastricht Treaty). There are many people who argue for foetal rights from a human rights perspective, not from a religious perspective at all. I've already mentioned that according to the ECHR, people have every right to apply their morality to the rest of society when they're exercising their democratic right to vote in a referendum on a Constitutional change because it's a matter of public interest.

I'm fairly sure this is not a faithful account of the various preambles etc, which allow for the possibility that some countries may choose to legislate to grant the unborn some rights, but the ECHR itself does no such thing.

Well the reason they could be incarcerated in a psychiatric facility under the Mental Health Act is because it can be demonstrated that by their actions they present either a danger to themselves or to others. This was successfully argued in the Miss Y case which led to a woman being incarcerated and forced to give birth against her will. I don't agree with the judgement, but it's entirely possible it could happen again even if the 8th amendment is repealed, because there was no indication from any of the main parties in the General Election as to the wording of any possible future legislation in the event that the 8th amendment is repealed. As I said earlier in the thread, the Irish Government (pick your party really, they'll all avoid legislating for abortion equally), will drag the issue on for as long as they can possibly get away with while the option is available to travel abroad to avail of an abortion.

Which judgment was that? I don't think you're correct. In fact I'm sure you're entirely wrong again - even wronger than in your first part.

volchitsa wrote: »

Which judgment was that? I don't think you're correct. In fact I'm sure you're entirely wrong again - even wronger than in your first part.

Well, the latter part, that Miss Y was forced to give birth against her will, was certainly correct.

I think the referendum will pass.

Too many people mistakenly think abortion is a religious issue, and not an issue of respecting other human life.

jeamimus wrote: »

Well, the latter part, that Miss Y was forced to give birth against her will, was certainly correct.

That was indeed the result, but not under the Mental Health Act, and there was no judgment because the HSE were ordered by the MOH to drop the case.

It's unlikely too that it could be used as a precedent for any future forced birth, which was also part of Jack's argument. For one thing the authorities said that she consented to the c-section, but someone who is restrained due to their mental health making them a danger to themselves or to others cannot possibly consent to surgery.

Fairly poor understanding of mental health issues and the mental health act here from OEJ and LCC. Also reading newspaper reports of almost anything, and especially cases before the courts, don't always give a faithful account of what actually happened.

Yes, I agree with most of that. Not sure about the c-section though - the "equal right to life" of the unborn is in fact restricted by "as far as practicable" (OWTTE) and it's unlikely that "practicable" includes mutilating surgery on the mother carried out without her consent. If it really does go that far, that puts us on a level of abuses of human rights more comparable to China or Saudi Arabia that to other western democracies.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Fairly poor understanding of mental health issues and the mental health act here from OEJ and LCC. Also reading newspaper reports of almost anything, and especially cases before the courts, don't always give a faithful account of what actually happened.

Which part was poor understanding PP? The Mental Health Act provides for involuntary incarceration of a person who presents a danger to themselves or others due to ill mental health, and if a pregnant woman is actively endangering her own life, or the life of the unborn, then the Mental Health Act could possibly be invoked depending upon circumstances if the woman was assessed as experiencing depression.

I know newspaper reports don't always present an accurate account of events, but I'm only going on memory for this stuff from what I remember of leaked reports and independent investigations. The case itself is complicated by numerous factors in fairness.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Which part was poor understanding PP? The Mental Health Act provides for involuntary incarceration of a person who presents a danger to themselves or others due to ill mental health, and if a pregnant woman is actively endangering her own life, or the life of the unborn, then the Mental Health Act could possibly be invoked depending upon circumstances if the woman was assessed as experiencing depression.

I know newspaper reports don't always present an accurate account of events, but I'm only going on memory for this stuff from what I remember of leaked reports and independent investigations. The case itself is complicated by numerous factors in fairness.

Again you assume anyone who is willing to end their own pregnancy must be suffering from such a sever mental disorder that they would fall under the act. This is simply not the case. The presence of such as disorder is a prerequisite for involuntary admission under the act. That is why I say poor understanding.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Again you assume anyone who is willing to end their own pregnancy must be suffering from such a sever mental disorder that they would fall under the act. This is simply not the case. The presence of such as disorder is a prerequisite for involuntary admission under the act. That is why I say poor understanding.

No, I'm not saying that a woman seeking to induce a miscarriage is an immediate indication that she is experiencing ill mental health. I'm saying that depending upon the way she tries to induce a miscarriage, it could, depending upon the circumstances, be argued that she is experiencing ill mental health and due to this, presents as a danger to herself or the life of the unborn.

Of course there are women who experience ill mental health before, during and even after their pregnancy has terminated, but they don't present any immediate danger to themselves or others so they aren't likely to be involuntarily incarcerated.

Would have said no before the marriage referendum. But now Id give it a maybe, I just think abortion is a very touchy issue in Ireland so I wouldnt be even slightly surprised if it didnt pass

Selene Dry Apartment wrote: »

Insane no. But certainly not thinking rationally.

So a woman in the 50s who had a "choice" between being thrown out by her family and ending up either on the streets or doing slave labour in a Laundry and ending her pregnancy illegally and whatever way she could was "not thinking rationally"??

I disagree entirely, it was very rational thinking indeed, and on the contrary, I'm sure it was often fear and emotion that prevented more women from doing the same thing, since their lives were effectively destroyed by having an illegitimate baby, and they knew that.

volchitsa wrote: »

A woman like Miss Y who wanted an abortion and preferred to kill herself than to give birth was not psychiatrically unwell, she simply could not bear the idea of remaining pregnant and giving birth.

The thing in the Miss Y case is not so much how horrible it is to consider that she had been "force fed" and incarcerated before being "forced" to give birth.

In practically all places with widely available abortion there is an upper gestational limit for a legal abortion. A woman presenting as suicidal and looking for an abortion after this point will be treated differently, but certainly a woman at 24 weeks will not automatically be given an abortion. And most jurisdictions would likely have an ethical debate around it, which would end up in the forced caesarian of the child.

That's not really the issue in the Miss Y case though. People presenting as suicidal over an unwanted pregnancy don't appear out of the ether at 24 weeks. If abortion had been available, she could have availed of it at 7 weeks when she discovered she was pregnant. And the whole case wouldn't have happened. Instead a catalogue of misunderstandings and nervous professionals meant it was 17 weeks before she could obtain proper help and have a decision made. And caused a woman to be detained and forced to give birth, in the 21st century.

I'm dubious about whether the amendment could pass. I'd like to think it would and certainly the vibe I get from everyone under 50 is a yes, but so often these things can be won in the scaremongering arguments. The people for whom it's not a big issue but manage to have their opinion swayed by emotive arguments or even plain nonsensical ones, "DeValera would be spinning in his grave".