Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The Church's stance on contraception is not tied in with its stance on reproduction and fertility in general?

It is, but it's stance on reproduction and fertility in general is not the history of how women have been treated historically in Ireland in all matters regarding fertility and reproduction. You knew that too, didn't you? And commenting that interestingly the Catholic Church opposes education about and access to effective contraception in the light of lower abortion rates potentially being due at least in part to education and contraception isn't a comment on the history of how women have been treated in Ireland, particularly when you back it up with your 'logical' idea that those opposed to the termination of unwanted foetuses, would be in favour of that which prevents unwanted foetuses from developing in the first place, rather than actively advising/campaigning against such measures. Not much history in there....

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Understand what Absolam?

Understand the link between the Church's stance on abortion and it's stance on contraception that was so logically problematic for you, remember? It's where you started this.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The churches <..> life", it is nothing only misogyny.

No. I uinderstand you probably only made your original statements as an opening for a diatribe and have no intention of standing over them, but no. When you assert all the terrible things done in Ireland, even when you lay them all at the feet of the Church, they don't just become misogyny. It's fits your narrative, sure, but labeling it doesn't make it so, and if you choose not to find out all of the facts, you're just fooling yourself. Like I said, if you're interested in knowing, rather than making stuff up, start a conversation with your first point and see where it takes you. It can't leave you less informed, can it?

silverharp wrote: »

it just the usual cat and mouse , if a particular way is known to be risky people will find another avenue . Picking a Spar or whatnot over the border as a drop off point will become known after a time and here the customs have no power.
So it appears currently that anyone who wants access to them can get them even if by a convoluted route

I think it might be a little more complicated than that, but sure, where there's a will there's a way for just about everything. That probably doesn't quite amount to 'anyone who wants access to them can get them' though.

Deleted User wrote: »

@AbsolamIs there anything remaining for me to respond to there? You've done that old trick of yours again. You know the one you do.

Keeping you to the facts? Yeah, sorry about that. If you like though, you could respond to what I asked you;

What do you think, is there a substantive reason to think the number of abortions by illegally imported pills is a statistically significant contributor to the drop in rates of abortions on Irish women in other jurisdictions, or would you say such a notion is speculative?

lazygal wrote: »

Should she serve 14 years for taking the abortion pill? And be added to The List?

An appropriate sentence for ending a life, plus lessons on how babies are made. Clearly she didn't see the link between having sex and getting pregnant.

robdonn wrote: »

The data that you have provided shows that the abortion incidence is dropping regionally, but we do not know if it is dropping in Ireland.

True, in fact we could reasonably say it is rising in Ireland, given that the POLDPA allows abortions to take place legally in Ireland that previously the HSA had to have conducted in the UK.

robdonn wrote: »

Although the metric used in the The Guttmacher Institute study (which we have already discussed in this thread) to measure the abortion incidence in Ireland includes those who travel to the UK for abortions that give a ROI address, "Dr Gilda Sedgh of the Guttmacher Institute in New York who led the study published in the Lancet Journal told the Irish Independent the rate of four abortions per 1,000 women of child bearing age would not stand up to scrutiny. It is based on figures showing around 4,000 women from the Republic have abortions in the UK annually."

So what we can tell from that is that the abortion rate of women who claim to be from the Republic having abortions in the UK has declined every year since 2003, even if that is not the correct or total number of Irish women having abortions in the UK; if the data has been collected consistently it does indicate a trend nonetheless, does it not?

robdonn wrote: »

So we have no idea if the abortion incidence in Ireland "is simply dropping for the same reasons as it is dropping everywhere else" because we don't know what the abortion incidence is or if it is actually dropping at all.

Well, we should draw a distinction between abortion incidence in Ireland and abortion incidence in Irish people, but still, whilst we don't have whole numbers, we do have a consistent set of numbers which there is no substantive reason to think aren't indicitive of the overall trend of abortion incidence in Irish people. Or is there a substantive reason?

robdonn wrote: »

And we have no reason to think it doesn't. <...>
any judgement on the significance of abortion pills influence in that number is simply guess work.

That would be my point.

[Deleted User]

Absolam wrote: »

Keeping you to the facts? Yeah, sorry about that. If you like though, you could respond to what I asked you;

What do you think, is there a substantive reason to think the number of abortions by illegally imported pills is a statistically significant contributor to the drop in rates of abortions on Irish women in other jurisdictions, or would you say such a notion is speculative?

Without data I would be happier being wholly agnostic on the matter.

I would say that the simple existence and availability of an abortion pill (our borders are not cast iron tight - see smuggled alcohol,cigarettes drugs etc) means that the count of women who have abortions outside of the state can only ever understimate the true number of 'Irish residents who have abortions' (used to get our 'abortion rate').

Which is simple logic.

# of Irish residents who have abortions in a year = (# of Irish residents who have abortions in other countries) + (#of Irish Residents who have abortions in Ireland.)

#IResidents who have abortions > #IResidents who have abortions in other countries

(strictly)

The prevalence of that pill's usage determines how much of an underestimation that we would see. That prevalence is immeasurable however.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well if the statistics are unreliable, we really can't say at all that the statistics on Irish women having abortions are influenced by the importation of abortion pills? We'd only be guessing, due to the lack of factual data!

Soooo, you're admonishing people for their guesswork, but your guesswork is ok?

Come on now, if that's not the definition of double standards...

And my point is that the data is unreliable due to being incomplete. If additional data is received about women having abortions with imported abortion pills then the number can only stay the same or go up, the latter being the more likely outcome due to customs controls not being perfect.

I state though that I am making no claim that any increase would be statistically significant.

Absolam wrote: »

That would be my point.

Ah good.

Kiwi in IE

frostyjacks wrote: »

I agree, she probably won't get the jail time she deserves, but as with the recent case in the north I would still expect her to be prosecuted and convicted. We can't live in a society where people pick and choose which laws they want to obey.

Jesus was not the son of God, he was an ordinary man who died around 2000 years ago, and aside from that, it would be impossible for a person to be the son of an imaginary entity anyway. Mary was not a virgin, she was just a clever young woman with a good story to explain why she was pregnant when she wasn't supposed to be.

I just broke Irish law! Going to report me to the Garda for blasphemy?

Yes people do pick and choose when laws are totally unfair/unreasonable and ridiculous. Therefore in order to encourage respect for, and adherence to the law, it's better that States avoid having laws that are such.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I just broke Irish law!

I don't think that's true. The offence consists of uttering material "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion", when the intent and result is "outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion". Not really likely to happen on A&A... but it's fair to point out that if you say you intend to use boards.ie to commit an Offense, mods might feel obliged to take some action, so I would avoid it (just to be on the safe side) if I were you. Purely friendly advice!

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

An appropriate sentence for ending a life, plus lessons on how babies are made. Clearly she didn't see the link between having sex and getting pregnant.

Is 14 years appropriate? I already know how babies are made, having had two of them. If I take the life of an unborn child, do I need to do the lessons? Do rape victims?

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think that's true. The offence consists of uttering material "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion", when the intent and result is "outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion". Not really likely to happen on A&A... but it's fair to point out that if you say you intend to use boards.ie to commit an Offense, mods might feel obliged to take some action, so I would avoid it (just to be on the safe side) if I were you. Purely friendly advice!

I think that a number of people who have posted on the Christianity forum would probably be guilty of the offence then! :P

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Jesus was not the son of God, he was an ordinary man who died around 2000 years ago, and aside from that, it would be impossible for a person to be the son of an imaginary entity anyway. Mary was not a virgin, she was just a clever young woman with a good story to explain why she was pregnant when she wasn't supposed to be.

I just broke Irish law! Going to report me to the Garda for blasphemy?

Yes people do pick and choose when laws are totally unfair/unreasonable and ridiculous. Therefore in order to encourage respect for, and adherence to the law, it's better that States avoid having laws that are such.

That statement would be viewed more as idiotic than blasphemous, so I think you're safe (for now).

The thing is, people voted in this law. Not priests, nuns, bishops etc., but ordinary men and women of all ages and backgrounds. I don't know how more democratic you can get. I'd happily see another referendum tomorrow, safe in the knowledge people will do the right thing.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

That statement would be viewed more as idiotic than blasphemous, so I think you're safe (for now).

The thing is, people voted in this law. Not priests, nuns, bishops etc., but ordinary men and women of all ages and backgrounds. I don't know how more democratic you can get. I'd happily see another referendum tomorrow, safe in the knowledge people will do the right thing.

By this, do you mean repeal the eighth amendment? If they do that, will you accept that women who have abortions shouldn't go to jail, be named and shamed on lists and face lessons on how babies are made?

lazygal wrote: »

By this, do you mean repeal the eighth amendment? If they do that, will you accept that women who have abortions shouldn't go to jail, be named and shamed on lists and face lessons on how babies are made?

Just going on past history I'm going to take a wild shot and say no, I have a feeling that's not what he meant

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think that's true. The offence consists of uttering material "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion", when the intent and result is "outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion". Not really likely to happen on A&A... but it's fair to point out that if you say you intend to use boards.ie to commit an Offense, mods might feel obliged to take some action, so I would avoid it (just to be on the safe side) if I were you. Purely friendly advice!

So if I post the same statement over in the Christianity forum, where the intent would be to cause offense and outrage, the mods would probably delete/ban me, but how interested do you think the Garda would be? They should be interested if I have broken the law should they not?

frostyjacks wrote: »

The thing is, people voted in this law. Not priests, nuns, bishops etc., but ordinary men and women of all ages and backgrounds. I don't know how more democratic you can get. I'd happily see another referendum tomorrow, safe in the knowledge people will do the right thing.

A lot of those people are dead now.

lazygal

robdonn wrote: »

A lot of those people are dead now.

And many have seen how horrific the eighth amendment has been for women and girls and would not vote the same way as they did in 1983.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So if I post the same statement over in the Christianity forum, where the intent would be to cause offense and outrage, the mods would probably delete/ban me, but how interested do you think the Garda would be? They should be interested if I have broken the law should they not?

I think that if it were reported to them and there was sufficient evidence to show that a crime had been committed (and I think a significant number, with all due respect to boards.ie, is likely to be considered a fair bit more than the general readership of the Christianity forum) and the perpetrator could be identified, they'd turn it over to the Attorney General to decide if there was any merit in pursuing a case. I doubt the AG would consider an offense with a maximum penalty of a fine of 25k quite as worth pursuing as an offense with a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment, but personally I wouldn't try my luck just to see. Whether the Gardai are interested is probably not as important as what they might feel obliged to do.

Absolam wrote: »

(and I think a significant number, with all due respect to boards.ie, is likely to be considered a fair bit more than the general readership of the Christianity forum)

I think that the lack of a definition of "significant" is one of the problems that many have with that law. But I think this might be going a tad bit off topic.

Kiwi in IE

Absolam wrote: »

I think that if it were reported to them and there was sufficient evidence to show that a crime had been committed (and I think a significant number, with all due respect to boards.ie, is likely to be considered a fair bit more than the general readership of the Christianity forum) and the perpetrator could be identified, they'd turn it over to the Attorney General to decide if there was any merit in pursuing a case. I doubt the AG would consider an offense with a maximum penalty of a fine of 25k quite as worth pursuing as an offense with a maximum penalty of 14 years' imprisonment, but personally I wouldn't try my luck just to see. Whether the Gardai are interested is probably not as important as what they might feel obliged to do.

My point was that if laws are unfair/unreasonable, there are likely to be large numbers of people who don't really feel any qualms about breaking them. Marijuana smoking is a good example. Near where I am a 100km zone randomly turns into a 60km zone in an area where there are no houses/shops and lasts for about 1km, very few slow down. When contraception was illegal, people saw that as unfair/unreasonable and obtained it illegally anyway. Many women, myself included, would have no issue with dealing with obtaining and taking abortion pills illegally in Ireland, if the need arose. In order to retain high levels of respect for the law, laws must be reasonable, in line with human rights firstly and secondly reflect the wishes of the people. There is evidence to show that the 8th Ammendment very possibly no longer reflects the wishes of the people, and where it stands within the framework of Human Rights is also dubious at best. There needs to be a referendum.

PopePalpatine

lazygal wrote: »

Should she serve 14 years for taking the abortion pill? And be added to The List?

14 years of hard labour should do the trick! Perhaps we could outsource it to the RCC as in the good old days, too, because deus vult!

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

That statement would be viewed more as idiotic than blasphemous, so I think you're safe (for now).

The thing is, people voted in this law. Not priests, nuns, bishops etc., but ordinary men and women of all ages and backgrounds. I don't know how more democratic you can get. I'd happily see another referendum tomorrow, safe in the knowledge people will do the right thing.

A previous generation voted on the 8th. Nobody younger than 50 voted back when it was put to the people.

Society changes, and subsequent generations vote to change things to reflect current attitudes in society.

The majority want some form of change regarding the 8th, yet it isn't being put to the people to vote on.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

I agree, she probably won't get the jail time she deserves, but as with the recent case in the north I would still expect her to be prosecuted and convicted. We can't live in a society where people pick and choose which laws they want to obey.

Thankfully we're not in Norther Ireland,
Plenty of people choose the laws they choose to obey especally when the law is unfit.

Not for one second would any sane judge in this country try and jail a women who takes pills because her fetus had fetal abnormalities, yes she has broken the law. But it would never ever happen

Cabaal wrote: »

Thankfully we're not in Norther Ireland,
Plenty of people choose the laws they choose to obey especally when the law is unfit.

Not for one second would any sane judge in this country try and jail a women who takes pills because her fetus had fetal abnormalities, yes she has broken the law. But it would never ever happen

In the Belfast case, and the Irish Times article, it was nothing to do with medical reasons. The mothers just didn't want to be pregnant anymore. It was an inconvenience. The babies in both instances were, as far as we know, perfectly healthy.

FFA is tragic, but abortion is not a solution. Besides, most of the protesters we see on the repeal marches want unlimited abortion right up to birth; FFA is irrelevant to them. They're exploiting parent's grief to push their agenda through. Shameful.

eviltwin

frostyjacks wrote: »

In the Belfast case, and the Irish Times article, it was nothing to do with medical reasons. The mothers just didn't want to be pregnant anymore. It was an inconvenience. The babies in both instances were, as far as we know, perfectly healthy.

FFA is tragic, but abortion is not a solution. Besides, most of the protesters we see on the repeal marches want unlimited abortion right up to birth; FFA is irrelevant to them. They're exploiting parent's grief to push their agenda through. Shameful.

Who are you to say it's not the solution? Do you know these families, do you know their circumstances, do you know there are many women who are forever grateful to the UK for providing care in their time of need? A lot of the voices in the pro choice campaigns are people who have had a ffa pregnancy, they are well able to decide for themselves if they want to work to change the law, they even went so far as to set up a lobby and support group - TFMR Ireland - so don't start with that condescending rubbish.