Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Cabaal wrote: »

Please feel free to enlighten us then,
Hard to claim you're liberal though when you're happy to restrict personal freedoms, even when the persons health and life is at risk.

I don't accept the abortion argument is about personal freedom for women because I also believe in personal freedom for the unborn child.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Oh please! I was never baptised or christened or anything like that. Both my parents were atheists. I'm also definitely NOT a Catholic, and have no Catholic ancestors either. My family background, on both sides (if you're interested) would be very slightly Church of England with the odd Methodist thrown in for good luck. Religion of any sort has never played any sort of role in my life or my parents' lives. My grandparents on both sides didn't attend any church apart from the usual marriages funerals and christenings.

Maybe you could link some of the prolife non religious peer reviewed scientific data that led you to conclude that I should never be allowed to have an abortion. And that abortion is never necessary during pregnancy.

Cabaal wrote: »

Please feel free to enlighten us then,
Hard to claim you're liberal though when you're happy to restrict personal freedoms, even when the persons health and life is at risk.

I don't accept the abortion argument is about personal freedom for women because I also believe in personal freedom for the unborn child.

See thats your first problem, reading bias data.
You instead should be researching proper medical data, not selective data cherry picked to suit an agenda

Yes, perhaps so. Is that what every person does before they come to a decision on the rights or wrongs of abortion? I hardly think so. I have read pro-choice literature too, and some of it is heart breaking, but I still don't accept that two wrongs make a right. I deeply believe that the unborn child is entitled to rights too.

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Absolutely swarms of them on the Internet. And yet every pro-lifer you meet in the real world is a devout Catholic. Funny that...

Oh please! I was never baptised or christened or anything like that. Both my parents were atheists. I'm also definitely NOT a Catholic, and have no Catholic ancestors either. My family background, on both sides (if you're interested) would be very slightly Church of England with the odd Methodist thrown in for good luck. Religion of any sort has never played any sort of role in my life or my parents' lives. My grandparents on both sides didn't attend any church apart from the usual marriages funerals and christenings.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

This is exactly what I mean - I'm told I'm not liberal because of my views on abortion, yet you don't know any of my views on, for example, immigration, LGBT equality, etc, etc.

Please feel free to enlighten us then,
Hard to claim you're liberal though when you're happy to restrict personal freedoms, even when the persons health and life is at risk.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

No I'm not a medical doctor of any sort. No research done either, apart from reading pro-life literature etc,

See thats your first problem, reading bias data.
You instead should be researching proper medical data, not selective data cherry picked to suit an agenda

lazygal wrote: »

Are you a medical doctor specialising in the care of women with medical problems during pregnancy? How many cases have you studied in your research that leads you to the conclusion that I won't ever need an abortion and moreover, should be forced to carry any pregnancy to full term, regardless of any risks to my health or indeed my own wishes on the matter?

No I'm not a medical doctor of any sort. No research done either, apart from reading pro-life literature etc, and above all anecdotal evidence. How often have you come across cases to back up your belief that a mother's life is DIRECTLY threatened by continuing with a pregnancy?

Are you a medical professional, or have you studied/researched this field for many years? Or, like me, are you relying on gut instinct, literature and articles you've read and anecdotal evidence?

These arguments between pro-life and pro-choice advocates are pretty pointless really, and only end up becoming point scoring exercises. We both know that we'll never convince the other to accept our beliefs. That's why in my original post I stated that I didn't really want to get into the whole argument. I was just interested to find out if any other liberal athiest was pro-life and annoyed as always being tarred with the same brush as the religious right.

Loafing Oaf

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I wonder if there are any other liberal atheists out there who are, like me, completely against abortion?

Absolutely swarms of them on the Internet. And yet every pro-lifer you meet in the real world is a devout Catholic. Funny that...

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

Yes. I believe in marriage equality and the freedom to move, amongst many other things. However, I believe that abortion is a different question to basic individual rights, as abortion directly affects not just the mother but also the unborn child, who has no rights at all if abortion legislation is introduced here.

Abortion is available here, when a woman's life is at risk. And the unborn has no rights at all anyway, as there is nothing to stop any pregnant woman who has the means and ability to travel to have as many abortions as she wants elsewhere. Unless you think the right to travel for abortions should be removed to provide more protection to the unborn than currently exists, and the repeal of the X case amendment so abortions for reasons of risk to life aren't allowed.

eviltwin wrote: »

I presume you mean you are pro marriage equality, the rights of people to move to different countries etc...in other words you believe people should be free to make the right choices for them. Why is abortion any different?

Yes. I believe in marriage equality and the freedom to move, amongst many other things. However, I believe that abortion is a different question to basic individual rights, as abortion directly affects not just the mother but also the unborn child, who has no rights at all if abortion legislation is introduced here.

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I said I didn't want to get into this sort of argument.

However, if I must answer your question, I'd say that I don't believe I've ever come across a case where the pregnant woman is 100% certain of dying due to pregnancy. Fortunately, medical science has advanced so far that the chances of a pregnant woman dying directly as a result of being pregnant are extremely low/non-existant.

Like most arguments put forward by pro-choice people, this is an extreme case argument which would be used to pave the way to complete abortion on demand, regardless of the cause of the pregnancy or the state of the mother's mental or physical health.

Are you a medical doctor specialising in the care of women with medical problems during pregnancy? How many cases have you studied in your research that leads you to the conclusion that I won't ever need an abortion and moreover, should be forced to carry any pregnancy to full term, regardless of any risks to my health or indeed my own wishes on the matter?

eviltwin

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

This is exactly what I mean - I'm told I'm not liberal because of my views on abortion, yet you don't know any of my views on, for example, immigration, LGBT equality, etc, etc.

I presume you mean you are pro marriage equality, the rights of people to move to different countries etc...in other words you believe people should be free to make the right choices for them. Why is abortion any different?

eviltwin wrote: »

You're not that liberal then

This is exactly what I mean - I'm told I'm not liberal because of my views on abortion, yet you don't know any of my views on, for example, immigration, LGBT equality, etc, etc.

lazygal wrote: »

What do you mean by completely against abortion? Like, you'd rather I wasn't able to have an abortion even if I might die?

I said I didn't want to get into this sort of argument.

However, if I must answer your question, I'd say that I don't believe I've ever come across a case where the pregnant woman is 100% certain of dying due to pregnancy. Fortunately, medical science has advanced so far that the chances of a pregnant woman dying directly as a result of being pregnant are extremely low/non-existant.

Like most arguments put forward by pro-choice people, this is an extreme case argument which would be used to pave the way to complete abortion on demand, regardless of the cause of the pregnancy or the state of the mother's mental or physical health.

eviltwin

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I wonder if there are any other liberal atheists out there who are, like me, completely against abortion? I hate it when those who are anti-abortion are automatically classed as ultra conservative, religious extremists.

Don't want to get into the whole pro-life/pro-choice argument here, just genuinely interested to see if any other atheists (preferably liberal too!) hold strong anti-abortion views?

You're not that liberal then

Ragnar Lothbrok wrote: »

I wonder if there are any other liberal atheists out there who are, like me, completely against abortion? I hate it when those who are anti-abortion are automatically classed as ultra conservative, religious extremists.

Don't want to get into the whole pro-life/pro-choice argument here, just genuinely interested to see if any other atheists (preferably liberal too!) hold strong anti-abortion views?

What do you mean by completely against abortion? Like, you'd rather I wasn't able to have an abortion even if I might die?

I wonder if there are any other liberal atheists out there who are, like me, completely against abortion? I hate it when those who are anti-abortion are automatically classed as ultra conservative, religious extremists.

Don't want to get into the whole pro-life/pro-choice argument here, just genuinely interested to see if any other atheists (preferably liberal too!) hold strong anti-abortion views?

pauldla

lazygal wrote: »

pauldla wrote: »

Water off a ducks back for Breda, I'm sure; sure what matter lies, if they're for the faith.

Mental reservations, you mean.

Indeed, I stand corrected. Thank you, Sister Lazygal.

pauldla wrote: »

Water off a ducks back for Breda, I'm sure; sure what matter lies, if they're for the faith.

Mental reservations, you mean.

pauldla

Water off a ducks back for Breda, I'm sure; sure what matter lies, if they're for the faith.

Sir, – We are the two human rights lawyers your columnist Breda O’Brien cites in her efforts to paint Amnesty International Ireland’s position on abortion as less than honest (“Amnesty abandons values of Seán MacBride”, April 23rd). O’Brien relies on a 2008 journal article we co-authored before we joined Amnesty International, where we pointed out that only one regional human rights treaty, the African Women’s Protocol, explicitly names abortion as a human right. She says that we were “intellectually honest enough” when we wrote this, and suggests that Amnesty International, in saying that women and girls have a human right to access safe and legal abortion, is not. This carries the added implication that we somehow abandoned our “honesty” when working with Amnesty International. We are aggrieved at both suggestions.
So let us be very clear – women and girls do have a human right to access safe and legal abortion. It is an interpreted right and not an expressly stated right in UN human rights treaties.
Just as there is no explicit “right to be free from female genital mutilation (FGM)” or “right to be free from coerced or forced sterilisation” enumerated in those treaties, both are today understood as falling within the rights to privacy and to be free from torture and other ill-treatment. The rights set out in UN treaties, drafted decades ago, were designed to be applied to specific issues arising in people’s lives.
These treaties are living instruments to be interpreted by treaty bodies, made up of experts elected by states, in light of current knowledge and understanding of the impact of states’ conduct on their people. That is how the development of international law works. It is clear that your columnist does not understand this.
And, just as Amnesty International says, the same is true for abortion – women’s and girls’ right to access safe and legal abortion is firmly grounded in decades of jurisprudence from a range of human rights bodies and experts.
What we wrote in 2008 about UN treaty bodies being a useful resource for women’s rights advocates is even truer today. Particularly in the last decade, recognition of the grave impact of denying women access to safe and legal abortion has been acknowledged by nearly every human rights body at the international and regional levels. This is in large part due to women themselves raising their voices against draconian laws such as Ireland’s.
We object to being dragged into your columnist’s attack on Amnesty International Ireland because it is not only unfounded, but distracts from the reality of what is happening to women and girls, including in Ireland.
We cannot comment on O’Brien’s accusing Amnesty International Ireland of disgracing one of its founding members by advocating for women’s rights, except to say that, having worked for the organisation, we can confirm that no one person in Amnesty International’s staff or membership gets to dictate the movement’s mandate.
Rather, the organisation draws its mandate from international human rights law, and it does so without apology.
We are proud that the world’s largest human rights organisation is standing up with women, including in Ireland. This is why we joined Amnesty International. This is laudable work that safeguards women’s health and often saves their lives. – Yours, etc,
JAIME TODD-GHER,
CHRISTINA ZAMPAS,
Amnesty International,
London.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/amnesty-and-abortion-1.2626655

Once again, Breda is called out by those she's quoted as supporting her position for misrepresentation.

aloyisious

Listening to the RTE radio 1 news (7 to 9) re questions about the nuns running St Vincents making demands on control of the hospital -, relating to the reported plan to move the Nat Maternity Hospital from Hollis St to it's location. Denials being made that the nuns had made any such demands. Given how there is now an acceptance by those running Hollis St that abortions are necessary at times, any plans by nuns to gain control of the running of the Hollis St Op (if it moved to St Vincents) does NOT (IMO) bode well for the present independent style of management at Hollis St in regard to it's view on pregnant womens health and sometime necessary operations.

http://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2016/04/25/solidarity-rally-to-show-support-with-the-women-of-northern-ireland/

Tomorrow the Abortion Rights Campaign (ARC) will hold a lunchtime rally at 1pm at the Four Courts, Dublin, in solidarity with a woman in Northern Ireland who is being prosecuted for obtaining abortion pills for her teenage daughter.

She is charged with obtaining “poison”, despite the fact that the abortion pills (Mifepristone and Misoprostol) would have been prescribed to her daughter on the NHS had she travelled to England or Wales.

Like the case earlier this month when a young woman was prosecuted for procuring her own abortion, this case highlights the severe stigma surrounding abortion.

aloyisious

frostyjacks wrote: »

Putting the barbs aside, the author has a point. Why do we even need Amnesty in Ireland? We probably have the best human rights record in the developed world. Colm would find more fulfillment employing his skills in Africa or the Middle East.

I take it you are favourably-minded to the odd personal taste of a barbed lash or two.

frostyjacks wrote: »

Putting the barbs aside, the author has a point. Why do we even need Amnesty in Ireland? We probably have the best human rights record in the developed world. Colm would find more fulfillment employing his skills in Africa or the Middle East.

I'm really surprised you're not aware of this but you know some equality issues certainly exist in Ireland, for example there are some people in Ireland that have an utter hatred towards Muslims (I know, shocking).

They've said awful things about Muslims and want them treated differently, I'm really surprised you're not aware of this??

So its important to have organizations that keep the importance of equality and human rights going in this country...because the government don't always do such a good job as often TD's are hate filled and will also listen to the hate filled people.

pauldla

frostyjacks wrote: »

Putting the barbs aside, the author has a point. Why do we even need Amnesty in Ireland? We probably have the best human rights record in the developed world. Colm would find more fulfillment employing his skills in Africa or the Middle East.

This is a use of the royal we, one presumes?