Social Democrats member dropped as Mass reader over abortion stance
Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: » what is Truth?
aloyisious wrote: » Originally Posted by lazygal View Post What is the sanctity of life? Edit: Both ARE what the laws of our land say they ARE, THAT FACT WON'T BE LIKED BY SOME OR MOST OF US. Currently abortion is allowed for in law here to a limited degree, so the sanctity of life isn't recognized totally within state law. It's a matter of necessity really, often left to a judgement call by some-one who know's she/he will be called out on it by a hind-sighter not there at the time.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Foetuses do not have an equal right to life whether the Irish constitution says so or not. It is a case of the Irish constitution being wrong.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Irish law contradicts that assertion in many ways. The destruction of frozen embryos in fertility clinics being a glaringly obvious one.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Foetuses do not have an equal right to life to born people, you know it, I know it!
Kiwi in IE wrote: » The fact there is no pursuit or inquiry when a woman admits in a public forum to intentionally destroying 'unborn life', is clear proof that the constitutional statement is a farcical pretence to placate the RCC, who ruled the country at the time of its insertion into the constitution.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » There is no pursuit or enquiry when people publicly admit such activities because law makers and 'pro lifers' both know that if there is, the whole house of cards will fall straight down.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » I ask you this Absolam, if I contacted the press to say that I had ordered cyanide online with the intention of killing my neighbour, and I had recieved the cyanide, administered it to the neighbour in a cup of tea, and they were now dead, what would the response be?
Kiwi in IE wrote: » You mention infanticide. What would the response be to the above scenario if the neighbour and the tea, were replaced with baby and bottle?
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Also the maximum sentence for killing a born person is life, any born person. The maximum penalty for 'killing unborn life' is 14 years.
lazygal wrote: » What is the sanctity of life?
frostyjacks wrote: » She put her story out there in the national media. Why would she do that if she didn't want it discussed? She broke the law, but paints herself as the victim. It's bizarre. I can't imagine a rapist confessing to a sex crime and expecting a similar level of sympathy as this girl got.
frostyjacks wrote: » I'm not sure. Maybe people are opening their eyes to the sanctity of life. Maybe stories in the press about women suffering mental health issues after abortions are giving people second thoughts. Could be any number of reasons.
In 1990, the American Psychological Association (APA) found that "severe negative reactions [after abortion] are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses."[8] The APA updated its findings in August 2008 to account for new evidence, and again concluded that a woman's first termination of an unplanned pregnancy in the first trimester did not increase the risk of mental-health problems.[3][9] A 2008 systematic review of the medical literature on abortion and mental health found that high-quality studies consistently showed few or no mental-health consequences of abortion, while poor-quality studies were more likely to report negative consequences.[10] In December 2011, the U.K. National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health published a systematic review of available evidence, similarly concluding that first-time abortion in the first trimester does not increase the risk of mental-health problems compared with bringing the pregnancy to term.[4][11]Despite the weight of medical opinion that first-time abortions in the first trimester (the majority of abortions[12]) do not result in increased risk of mental health issues when compared with live birth, some anti-abortion advocacy groups have continued to allege a link between abortion and mental-health problems.[13] Some anti-abortion groups have used the term "post-abortion syndrome" to refer to negative psychological effects which they attribute to abortion. However, "post-abortion syndrome" is not recognized as an actual syndrome by the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association,[14] or the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists;[15] physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that the effort to popularize the idea of a "post-abortion syndrome" is a tactic used by anti-abortion advocates for political purposes.[1][13][16][17] Some U.S. state legislatures have mandated that patients be told that abortion increases their risk of depression and suicide, despite the fact that such risks are not acknowledged by the major mental health organizations or the higher-quality science publications on the issue.[10][18]
eviltwin wrote: » You don't agree with abortion in any circumstances, what difference would it make if she told every detail or none at all? Your opinion won't change. Besides this woman doesn't need to justify her actions to anyone.
eviltwin wrote: » Is it just the intimate details of this particular woman you think you're entitled to or would you want it for every Irish resident having an abortion? Seriously, what business is it of yours what she does or why she did it, you wouldn't have any compassion for her no matter what her circumstances so why even ask? But then you are the person who once suggested we have a list of women who have had abortions aren't you? You're are just a busybody...would you want to know who in society has had an affair or used a prostitute or tried drugs?
Cabaal wrote: » No women has ever been convicted for using abortion pills in Republic Of Ireland, unless you know something the Department of Justice doesn't know? Also, you and I know that this will never ever go to court, even the pro life groups would be against that happening.
Lurkio wrote: » Yes, but why do you think its "on the way out"?
frostyjacks wrote: » It would have given us a more rounded version of events. There was a lot of unanswered questions in that article. Did she seek advice from crisis pregnancy organisations? If not, why not? Has she still not told the father what she did to his baby? Does she ever think about the baby? Why does she think the law doesn't apply to her? Like I said, we only get one side of the story in these media campaigns.
inocybe wrote: » This really annoys me. Surely if you truly believe that abortion is murder the circumstances are completely irrelevant. So why want to even know the reasons. It's all about teaching those loose women a lesson isn't it?
Absolam wrote: » Why do you think it's a less serious crime? All crimes are serious, but they carry different penalties. There's no reason to think that when a murderer convicted of capital murder gets a sentence of life imprisonment (minimum 40 years) and a murderer convicted of murder gets a sentence of life imprisonment (average of 12 years) that their victim had a greater right to life is there? No more than when one person receives a sentence for involuntary manslaughter, and another receives a greater sentence for infanticide. The infant doesn't have a greater right to life than a person killed by involuntary manslaughter, but the crime will carry a different penalty. By the same token it's a greater crime to kill a Garda than a regular citizen, but that doesn't mean a Garda has a greater right to life does it? So the crimes and punishments don't actually need to be the same in order for the law to reflect the Constitutional assertion that a foetus has an equal right to life to born people; the law just needs to defend and vindicate those rights, which it does. Which I think quite readily shows why a woman who procures an abortion (or commits infanticide, or murders a prison officer) should not be charged with murder, but with the offense she actually committed.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » So killing a foetus is a less serious crime than killing a born person? Why? Killing a 4 year old is not a less serious crime than killing a 70 year old, in both cases, if under the same circumstances, say for example intentionally administering a fatal dose of drugs, the perpetrator would be up for the same sentence of whatever the Irish equivalent of First Degree Murder is (assuming there were no factors such as mental health that would reduce the charge). Why would the charges be less serious when it is a foetus that is the victim of the same crime, when the constitution states that a foetus has an equal right to life to a 4 year old and a 70 year old? The charge of murder carries and mandatory life sentence whilst the maximum sentence for killing a foetus is 14 years.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » The law does not really therefore reflect the constitutional assertion that a foetus has an equal right to life to born people does it? It is a lesser crime to kill a foetus.
Absolam wrote: » Because having an abortion isn't murder according to the law? Just because a foetus has an equal right to life doesn't make killing it murder; you yourself said planning and implementing the intentional killing of a born person would be first degree murder (though there's no such thing as first degree murder in Ireland), so you can make a distinction. Surely you don't imagine the law can't? Especially since you know from posting on the thread that the intentional destruction of unborn human life is a criminal offense to itself. I think you were just trying to be provocative
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Foetuses have an equal right to life to a born person apparently. Planning and implementing the intentional killing of a born person would be first degree murder! Why would a woman who has an abortion not be charged with same?
Absolam wrote: » When did it become potentially an act of 'murder'?
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Yes, but the law could not be sure that those women were not pregnant unless they had been tested.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Seeing as it's potentially an act of 'murder', you would at least think the police would investigate? If someone put up a video on YouTube and it looked like there was even a very slim possibility that a real child had been killed, do you think that the authorities would fail to investigate, never mind allow one of the perpetrators to remain as a TD? The 8th Amendment is a joke!
Cabaal wrote: » Religious groups can't have it both ways, You can't both condemn people for getting pregnant and also be against safe sex.
