Abortion

[baldgye]

By saving lives.

Husbands, boyfriends, parents and children have suffered the loss of their wives, girlfriends, daughters and mothers when women have died as a direct result of the eight amendment to the constitution of Ireland.

Who's life? Making Abortion illegal doesn't save lives it just risks more women's lives... unless you're talking about an unborn fetus

No but it's law and it's also the mans child/responsibility so why shouldn't a man be allowed to vote.

What responsibility does a man have to an unborn fetus?

 

[Liquid]

Who's life? Making Abortion illegal doesn't save lives it just risks more women's lives... unless you're talking about an unborn fetus

No, making it legal allows doctors to treat mothers who would otherwise die. That's what I was intimating by saying that husbands, brothers, fathers and sons might want to vote in a referendum like this and it is no reason to exclude them.

 

[baldgye]

No, making it legal allows doctors to treat mothers who would otherwise die.

Sorry you've lost me! What do you mean?

 

[Mr Tree]

Who's life? Making Abortion illegal doesn't save lives it just risks more women's lives... unless you're talking about an unborn fetus



What responsibility does a man have to an unborn fetus?

Yeah thay was dumb of me didn't think that one through. But still it's also his maybe future child acting as if pregnancy is only relevant to woman seems a bit weird to me.

But still why would one group not be able to vote on any issue? Shouldn't we all have a vote when it's to make laws?

 

[baldgye]

Shouldn't we all have a vote when it's to make laws?

I don’t think so?
I can’t speak to Ireland, but in the U.K. we elect people to vote/make laws on our behalf.

Like I said, I’m not all for this, infact it’s the first I’ve heard of it. But I can see the logic and it is refreshing given how so many decisions in our lives are made by men. Decisions of which they won’t ever be affected.

 

[Famine]

Sorry you've lost me! What do you mean?

Making abortion illegal - which the 8th Amendment already does - does not make abortion disappear. It simply prevents there from being a valid, legal route to terminations in a medical setting, conducted by medical professionals. That means that the abortions that happen either do so through unlicensed (and likely unsanitary) practitioners or at home using "home remedies". These stretch from scalding hot baths and salt water douches to literally scraping out the uterus lining with a coathanger (yes, really) or deliberately causing abdominal injuries.

Aside from the psychological trauma of an unwanted pregnancy in the first place, there's now life-threatening physical traumas and additional psychological trauma from the brutal techniques used. And that's disregarding the women who choose to keep the pregnancy in the face of those risks (more psychological trauma) and then have to go through the appalling physiological effects of pregnancy and birth, which are by no means low-risk scenarios. Pregnancy alone doubles your risk of death, never mind childbirth - or long-term health complications other than death.


Repealing the 8th Amendment and ending the illegalisation of abortion means that women with unwanted pregnancies now have access to the same kind of medical care - including not only clinical terminations, but counselling - afforded to anyone else with literally any other medical condition. Thus:

making it legal allows doctors to treat mothers who would otherwise die.

 

[baldgye]

Making abortion illegal - which the 8th Amendment already does - does not make abortion disappear. It simply prevents there from being a valid, legal route to terminations in a medical setting, conducted by medical professionals. That means that the abortions that happen either do so through unlicensed (and likely unsanitary) practitioners or at home using "home remedies". These stretch from scalding hot baths and salt water douches to literally scraping out the uterus lining with a coathanger (yes, really) or deliberately causing abdominal injuries.

Aside from the psychological trauma of an unwanted pregnancy in the first place, there's now life-threatening physical traumas and additional psychological trauma from the brutal techniques used. And that's disregarding the women who choose to keep the pregnancy in the face of those risks (more psychological trauma) and then have to go through the appalling physiological effects of pregnancy and birth, which are by no means low-risk scenarios. Pregnancy alone doubles your risk of death, never mind childbirth - or long-term health complications other than death.


Repealing the 8th Amendment and ending the illegalisation of abortion means that women with unwanted pregnancies now have access to the same kind of medical care - including not only clinical terminations, but counselling - afforded to anyone else with literally any other medical condition. Thus:

Ah I misread, thought it said illegal Crossed wires!

Yeah I totally agree with this too, but again, it’s the woman’s choice to have an abortion in the first place.

 

[Famine]

Yeah I totally agree with this too, but again, it’s the woman’s choice to have an abortion in the first place.

Sometimes. Sometimes it's a couple's decision. Either way though, where abortion is illegal and either comes with significant risks or an otherwise blocked path resulting in the risks of pregnancy, the decision doesn't necessarily affect the woman along. A death from an illegal abortion, or a death from an ill-advised home remedy, or a death during an unwanted pregnancy affects those around her too.

Medical termination isn't without its risks, but they are generally lower. As we live in a nation where it's legal, it's perhaps much easier to think of abortion as "go to clinic pregnant, leave not pregnant" and that's a decision that only affects the woman involved, but that's not the case in nations where it isn't.

And those who perform the terminations aren't only female either...

 

[Touring Mars]

I can’t speak to Ireland, but in the U.K. we elect people to vote/make laws on our behalf.

Imagine if some MPs were barred from voting on legislation on the basis that they are not personally affected by it - that's a ridiculous idea, but it's the same logic as saying that only women should decide on laws pertaining to abortion (because only women can get pregnant). Apart from anything else, it pre-supposes that there are people who cannot be affected in any way by that legislation - and there is no possible way to rightly determine that, even in the case of abortion law. Men may not be able to conceive, but to suggest that men ought to have no say in determining abortion law would be to imply that men are not affected in any way by abortion or laws pertaining to it, which is provably false.

 

[Mr Tree]

I don’t think so?
I can’t speak to Ireland, but in the U.K. we elect people to vote/make laws on our behalf.

Like I said, I’m not all for this, infact it’s the first I’ve heard of it. But I can see the logic and it is refreshing given how so many decisions in our lives are made by men. Decisions of which they won’t ever be affected.

Still we all voted foe those people in power. Imagine this not being a referendum but a descision made in parlement. We all voted on people to make those laws and.we.voted for people we somewhat agree.

So if only woman can vote on abortion does that mean.only the female politicians can vote on the subject? Does this mean only the people voted in by woman can vote on this issue?

I think if you organise a vote the best way is let everyone eligable to vote vote.

 

[baldgye]

@Famine @Touring Mars

I’ve been chatting about it with my gf who’s a barrister and she basically makes the same points. I don’t disagree but also see the logic too it.
I’ve been trying to think of a comparison for men, a law that physically affected men that was contentious... but I’m coming up empty.

I’m looking forward to reading a breakdown and analysis after the result is in, with polling from men and women. It’s pretty interesting really.


MP’s are/can be stopped from voting in parliament by their Whips, however.

 

[Mr Tree]

@Famine @Touring Mars

I’ve been chatting about it with my gf who’s a barrister and she basically makes the same points. I don’t disagree but also see the logic too it.
I’ve been trying to think of a comparison for men, a law that physically affected men that was contentious... but I’m coming up empty.

I’m looking forward to reading a breakdown and analysis after the result is in, with polling from men and women. It’s pretty interesting really.


MP’s are/can be stopped from voting in parliament by their Whips, however.

Male circumscisions or is that not an example of what you where looking for?

What is an mp and.how can.he be stopped to vote?

 

[HenrySwanson]

Oooook, I wasn't expecting this many replies....

Of course words make a difference. That's why we have different words.

Calling a group "pro-choice" accurately represents what they want. Calling them an "abortion movement" implies something else.

Whatever floats your boat. But again this delves into how certain realities are ignored.

I don't think it's silly at all. The fetus/baby question is instructive to look at, as it illustrates the complexity of the question at hand.

Of course it's silly!
The scanning scenario should show how hilariously stupid the whole thing is

You've got that backwards. I'm aware of no laws that require a woman planning to carry to term to look an an ultrasound, but there are several states that require otherwise medically-unnecessary ultrasounds be performed before abortions, and some states even require the doctor to display the ultrasound and describe it to the patient.

So in the UK we usually ask what the plans are regarding the pregnancy, and based on that decision healthcare practitioners are directed in if they offer to show USS pictures or not.

So yeah, you're right, it's instructive to look at what "we" choose to do in the western world, which right now consists of trying to shame or emotionally abuse women, hoping to dissuade them from the procedure.

How do you reach that conclusion?

I don't like your choice of words here, but I think what you're talking about is done with IVF in some countries and US states. You can, in some places, generate embryos and then do testing to determine the gender and transfer those for procreation and discard the rest.

So the "weedy" was added in after the Sanger quote was brought up.

I know of at least one individual who created a bunch of embryos and got pregnant via one of them (froze the rest for later). After her pregnancy (boy) she determined that she wanted a girl, and was selectively transferring the girl embryos in hopes of a second child.

Problem?

It's a personal problem for me, but I don't see how you could legislate against it. If someone was having a girl and at 15 weeks decided against that citing other reasons how could we logically find out it was because of the sex of the child.

* Interestingly in some areas where abortion because of the sex was high some hospitals have/had a policy of not telling the sex of the baby,

I mentioned Planned Parenthood as offering counselling services that you noted are unavailable. You proceeded to address another individual citing my indication of these services indeed being available through--Wait, what was that organization? Oh yeah--Planned Parenthood, and you responded that you don't know what services are offered by another organization entirely because they apparently don't allow men to be present.

There was no reason for you to bring up Marie Stopes--represented either as an individual or an organization--in response to assertions regarding Planned Parenthood, except to imply that the two are equal and that controversy surrounding one inherently applies to both.

Of course you're aware of all of the above, as it was all calculated to undermine the discussion and bend it in service of your own agenda. This is nothing new, neither as a convention nor for you; I've observed you employing similar tactics with former forum staffer @Scaff.

But BPAS/Marie Stopes are the UK abortion providers, ergo when talking about counseling with regards to abortion I'd naturally use them.

I replied to this quote:

You mean like that which Planned Parenthood provides. Abortion isn't a foregone conclusion when one seeks the services provided by PP either, in fact it's still stressed as a medical procedure that shouldn't be approached lightly. But that doesn't prevent them from being demonized because one of the services they provide is directing women to a sound means of terminating pregnancy should they be set on doing so.

As its a US experience there's no way I can know how effective their counseling is, so I brought up BPAS/Marie Stopes - and even then I have limited experience with their counseling.

What a quaint way to describe the far right (and nothing at all to do with the actual discussion).

But there's been no police arrests at all for the protestors.

Of course it's relevant to the discussion - courts and the public sphere in general have recently taken a more liberal approach on things and that includes on topics like abortion

You might, but it seems your simply using transference to try and score points, a rather weak logical fallacy (and certainly not your first).

See above.

I'm not saying she lied about her report. I'm saying her report doesn't prove that the council were wrong to implement buffer zones outside abortion clinics. She didn't encounter anyone who was harassed but that doesn't mean people weren't harassed on other occasions.

I'm not entirely sure that was clear in your original post. You stated that they were far from independent accounts - I don't see any evidence of them being used as evidence against implementing a buffer zone.

Yup.

It's meant to show a general trend, an agenda if you will in how the country is run.

 

[baldgye]

Male circumscisions or is that not an example of what you where looking for?

What is an mp and.how can.he be stopped to vote?

That is a good one!

An MP is a Member of Parliament (the people you vote for) and they can be prevented from voting on matters by the Cheif Whip who won’t physically stop them, but make it a politically poor choice to vote against something the party is supporting.
It’s all part of the skullduggery of politics haha


(Sorry for going a bit off topic all)

 

[Mr Tree]

Of course it's relevant to the discussion - courts and the public sphere in general have recently taken a more liberal approach on things and that includes on topics like abortion

What do you mean by more liberal? I think you mean less religiously inspired, less authoritarian and generally having the ability to loon past their own believes on the basis of provided information.

When belgian judges or attorneys are called leftist (it's the belgian equivalent of liberal) it usually involves things like human rights being forced upon our governing party and our right wing voters eat it up as they believe in a direct democracy where the goverment has the power to overrules those ideas.

 

[TexRex]

But BPAS/Marie Stopes are the UK abortion providers, ergo when talking about counseling with regards to abortion I'd naturally use them.

Which would be fine when speaking freely on the subject, except an assertion was made regarding Planned Parenthood and the services they provide.

I replied to this quote:

You mean like that which Planned Parenthood provides. Abortion isn't a foregone conclusion when one seeks the services provided by PP either, in fact it's still stressed as a medical procedure that shouldn't be approached lightly. But that doesn't prevent them from being demonized because one of the services they provide is directing women to a sound means of terminating pregnancy should they be set on doing so.

Right, no mention of BPAS/Marie Stopes. No assertions regarding services offered by abortion clinics in general, or a presumed lack thereof. Just stuff about Planned Parenthood specifically.

As its a US experience there's no way I can know how effective their counseling is, so I brought up BPAS/Marie Stopes - and even then I have limited experience with their counseling.

I need some clarification on "effectiveness" of counselling.

 

[UKMikey]

It's meant to show a general trend, an agenda if you will in how the country is run.

I won't, I'm afraid. YouTube and our government blocking the far right has pretty much naff all to do with a local council preventing protests outside abortion clinics unless they all got together behind closed doors and planned some kind of vast liberal conspiracy together. Please try and get a grip.

 

[Danoff]

It's a personal problem for me, but I don't see how you could legislate against it. If someone was having a girl and at 15 weeks decided against that citing other reasons how could we logically find out it was because of the sex of the child.

What difference does it make what the reason is? The embryo/fetus in these examples is either entitled to a womb or not.

 

[Scaff]

But there's been no police arrests at all for the protestors.

What protesters?

You were talking about you-tube demonetizing people (which its done across the board) and non-UK residents from far right groups being denied entry into the country.

Lets keep your goalposts in the same place.

Of course it's relevant to the discussion - courts and the public sphere in general have recently taken a more liberal approach on things and that includes on topics like abortion

Which has what to do with youtube demonetizing across the board and the far right not being allowed into the country?

Don't just say 'it does', explain why.

See above.

See what about? You've not addressed the questions, the points or even kept the goal-posts in the same place.

Quite frankly you've done bugger all but effectively say 'because I say so', which doesn't really cut it as an argument.

 

[DK]

Exit polls are out, the Irish Times report 68%-32% in favour of repeal (1.5% margin of error with 95% confidence), RTE report 69.4%-30.6% (1.6% margin of error with 95% confidence). For those with a gambling habit, some betting exchanges offer 109/1 for repeal to fail.

 

[UKMikey]

Irish people voting for abortion on demand... a female Doctor Who... Black Hermione on Broadway... it's all connected

 

[Imari]

... Black Hermione on Broadway...

Holy hell, there's something I didn't know I wanted until I heard you say it.

Sometimes I love Planet Earth.

 

[UKMikey]

At any rate I hope the parents of Savita Halappanavar are able to draw some small comfort from today's result.

 

[Famine]

Irish people voting for abortion on demand... a female Doctor Who... Black Hermione on Broadway...

... cats and dogs, living together...

 

[Liquid]

Now Northern Ireland needs to enter the 20th 21st century.

 

[UKMikey]

Now Northern Ireland needs to enter the 20th 21st century.

20th is right, and Sinn Fein agrees.

Unfortunately it's the DUP who's calling the shots.

 

[Touring Mars]

That'll be the same DUP who insist that Northern Ireland should be treated exactly the same as any other part of the UK? Right...

 

[Sander 001]

Which would be fine when speaking freely on the subject, except an assertion was made regarding Planned Parenthood and the services they provide.


Right, no mention of BPAS/Marie Stopes. No assertions regarding services offered by abortion clinics in general, or a presumed lack thereof. Just stuff about Planned Parenthood specifically.


I need some clarification on "effectiveness" of counselling.

You asked about an online source for how the Church decided to suddenly switch to pro life for political power :

"As evangelical leaders formed common cause with Catholics on topics like feminism and homosexuality, they began re-interpreting the Bible as teaching the Roman Catholic position on abortion.

Falwell’s first major treatment of the issue, in a 1980 book chapter called, significantly, “The Right to Life,” declared, “The Bible clearly states that life begins at conception… (Abortion) is murder according to the Word of God.”

With the megawatt power of his TV presence and mailing list, Falwell and his allies disseminated these interpretations to evangelicals across America.


By 1984, it became clear these efforts had worked. That year, InterVarsity Press published the book Brave New People, which re-stated the 1970 evangelical consensus: abortion was a tough issue and warranted in many circumstances.

An avalanche of protests met the publication, forcing InterVarsity Press to withdraw a book for the first time in its history.

“The heresy of which I appear to be guilty,” the author lamented, “is that I cannot state categorically that human/personal life commences at day one of gestation.... In order to be labeled an evangelical, it is now essential to hold a particular view of the status of the embryo and fetus.”

What the author quickly realized was that the “biblical view on abortion” had dramatically shifted over the course of a mere 15 years, from clearly stating life begins at birth to just as clearly teaching it begins at conception."

 

[TenEightyOne]

You asked about an online source for how the Church decided to suddenly switch to pro life for political power :

There's no link to where you got the text, please could you post one?

What that sums up (seemingly) is that before the 60s some Evangelicals hadn't been pro-life. That's missing about 2,000 years of history of The Church, if you don't mind me noticing.

 

[Liquid]

Conservatives in Ireland, both politicians and senior clergy, were worried that Roe vs Wade in the US and its fallout controversy could spread to Ireland, even though abortion was already basically illegal under the Offences Against The Person Act of 1861, and decided to create the eighth amendment to rubber stamp and double up the legislation regarding "the right to life of the unborn".

So it was, in effect, a second layer of paint to prevent the Supreme Court of Ireland from using the constitution to recognise any sort of abortion rights.

Before 1983, abortion was illegal in Ireland and had been since at least 1861.
After 1983, abortion was still illegal and it was now judicially impossible to change this position and recognise abortion rights.

That's pretty much what it was like before the eighth amendment was introduced.
Someone asked about it the other day but it's been drowned out by the last page or so.

---

As for the church's softer stance despite it being one of the binding institutions which both desired and drafted it in the first place? Well, lots of reasons. For a start, it's not the same people as thirty-five years ago so different mindsets and attitudes. But it's probably best left for another thread.