gaaboard.com

QuoteTHE husband of a pregnant woman who died in hospital has told how they were on "top of the world" after learning of her pregnancy.

Savita Halappanavar (31) died in Galway University Hospital following a miscarriage after her family had requested an abortion when it became clear her baby could not survive.

It is understood the married woman, who was 17-weeks pregnant, died from blood poisoning.

Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar, who works for Boston Scientific in Galway, said they had held a baby shower with her mother and friends.

"She was fine, so happy," the 34-year-old said. However, after his wife later developed back pain and was in distress they visited Galway University Hospital.

"A doctor took a while to do some tests, I was called in I could see Savita in tears she was in shock. He told me there was cervical dilation and they don't think the baby will survive and there is no way to revert back. He said unfortunately I'm sorry I can't save the baby," her husband told RTE's News at One.

After she was found to be miscarrying, her husband asked for a medical termination to be carried out over three days but were refused because a foetal heartbeat was still present.

Her husband told how her condition began to deteriorate a few days later and she began to feel cold and unwell. "The last time I talked to her was in ICU," he said. "At around one o'clock the nurse came running and I was standing outside ICU, she told me to brave and took me into Savita." He said as the emergency team tried to save her life.

"The doctor told me he'd just lost her," Mr Halappanavar said, as he spoke from India where he had brought his wife's remains for burial.

Three investigations are being carried out into her death by the Coroner in Galway, the hosital's risk review group and the HSE's National Incident Management Team.

The case has already sparked debate over the right to an abortion where not having one might endanger the life of the mother.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/pregnancy-put-them-top-of-the-world-says-savitas-husband-3294325.html



i didn't see a thread on here about this story but i really think it deserves discussing.
to be honest i don't think i have ever been as shocked by something that happened in an Irish state institution and that's really saying something.

how this was allowed to happen it truly beyond me, and the failure of subsequent governments to legislate for this puts the rest of their cowardly self serving actions into context.

i don't necessarily blame the medical persona involved although a lot of questions have to be answered ,this is ultimately a complete failure of our political class to take any sort of responsibility for hard decisions that had to be made

Does the law not allow for abortions where the life of the mother is at risk?
If so there should be questions asked of her Doctors.

Quote from: guy crouchback on November 14, 2012, 04:14:37 PM
i don't necessarily blame the medical persona involved although a lot of questions have to be answered ,this is ultimately a complete failure of our political class to take any sort of responsibility for hard decisions that had to be made

I would hold fire on that as it's my understanding they should have done a D&C if the mothers life was at risk - maybe that's different in the south? Either way Kenny's response to Adams in the Dáil this morning was shameful.

As far as I recall the Supreme Court Decsion in the famous "X" case  said Abortions can be performed if there's a risk to the life of the mother.
Whether the State subsequently passed a Law to that effect or not - I would suggest that it is a matter for a Doctor/Consultant or whatever they may style themselves  to decide if a mother's life is at risk.

Hopefully people will wait for the facts to be in the public domain before this tragedy degenerates into another shouting match between the Anti and Pro Abortion extremists pushing their own agendas.

following the x case in 1992 (i think) it was established that a termination was allowed if the life of the mother wast risk however every government since has refused to pass legislation on this as it was considered too much of a hot potato. this means that doctors have no guidelines on when they can preform the necessary procedure.
in this case they seemed to be waiting for the foetal heartbeat to stop before performing the D&C, event though miscarriage was inevitable. the delay  (3 days) seems to have caused or greatly worsened the infection which killed this woman.

They doctors were saying that the heart was still beating so they couldn't/wouldn't abort it. How were the doctors/nurses to know that she would go down hill so quick. i think the law needs to change after this case and that a bit of common sense needs to provail.

Quote from: Hereiam on November 14, 2012, 04:47:42 PM
They doctors were saying that the heart was still beating so they couldn't/wouldn't abort it. How were the doctors/nurses to know that she would go down hill so quick. i think the law needs to change after this case and that a bit of common sense needs to provail.

that's the problem there is no law because not one government in the last 20 years had the courage to introduce legislation because parts of it would have been controversial in relation to the whole abortion debate.

to me this case is not about the abortion debate at all really. i don't really believe that even the most ardent pro life campaigner would argue that this situation should have been allow to escalate as it did .

to  me it is about the pathetic  bunch of shleevens we have as politicians and not just Fianna fail either the PD's were as guilty as anyone here as were labour and fine Gael.

I'd hold judgement until there is more information on the particulars of this case. I see we've all started appropriating blame after reading a 150 word news report. There was a greater body of evidence against Lord McAlpine.  ::)

If she had gone to a hospital in India she would still be alive.
It is a day to be ashamed to be Irish.

Quote from: trileacman on November 14, 2012, 04:55:04 PM
I'd hold judgement until there is more information on the particulars of this case. I see we've all started appropriating blame after reading a 150 word news report. There was a greater body of evidence against Lord McAlpine.  ::)

Well said.

Guy Crouchback has already decided that it was the lack of an abortion that caused this poor woman's death according to the title of the thread.
Is he/she suitably medically qualified to make such a judgement from one newspaper report?

Quote from: deiseach on November 14, 2012, 04:56:17 PM

Quote from: trileacman on November 14, 2012, 04:55:04 PM
I'd hold judgement until there is more information on the particulars of this case. I see we've all started appropriating blame after reading a 150 word news report. There was a greater body of evidence against Lord McAlpine.  ::)

Well said.

That sad thing is that the exact opposite will happen, the media will jump on this as stir as much as they to further their own interests whilst gobshite motormouths such as Nell McCafferty and Jon Waters twist the truth in order to further their own agendas.

Indeed Trileac.
All rational debate and judgement will be out the window as the extremists take over the airwaves to push their black and white agendas.

Quote from: Rossfan on November 14, 2012, 04:59:52 PM
Guy Crouchback has already decided that it was the lack of an abortion that caused this poor woman's death according to the title of the thread.
Is he/she suitably medically qualified to make such a judgement from one newspaper report?

No buts its an easy and sensational accusation to make. It's not as simple a problem as everyone seems now to be saying.

You have to choose to save one life from a possible of two knowing that the longer you perpetuate the life of one the greater the danger to the other.

Any one of you have stood in that position, choosing who to save and who to kill, can pontificate to the rest of us about professional negligence or poor legislation. Otherwise you should guard your condemnation until more of the specific facts of the case emerge. Not just some piecemeal evidence and 3rd hand quotes.

Quote from: Rossfan on November 14, 2012, 04:59:52 PM
Guy Crouchback has already decided that it was the lack of an abortion that caused this poor woman's death according to the title of the thread.
Is he/she suitably medically qualified to make such a judgement from one newspaper report?

I'm not medically qualified to make any decision, and I'm only going on what has been reported throughout the day and on the interviews with the woman's husband. i have started this thread  because this is turning into a massive story that at present is being reported all over Europe and by tomorrow will be world wide.

this story is different because the reason it is a story at all comes back to the failure of politicians to implement  necessary legislation for over twenty years.

according to the woman's husband they were told by a member of the medical staff that a termination was not possible as ireland was a ''catholic contry''. now this may have been said as an expression of exasperation with the status quo or as an explanation of why  the status quo was the way it was.

either way it seems to point at the fact that the reason for not preforming the procedure earlier was not based solely on medical considerations.

Quote from: guy crouchback on November 14, 2012, 05:13:18 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on November 14, 2012, 04:59:52 PM
Guy Crouchback has already decided that it was the lack of an abortion that caused this poor woman's death according to the title of the thread.
Is he/she suitably medically qualified to make such a judgement from one newspaper report?

I'm not medically qualified to make any decision, and I'm only going on what has been reported throughout the day and on the interviews with the woman's husband. i have started this thread  because this is turning into a massive story that at present is being reported all over Europe and by tomorrow will be world wide.

this story is different because the reason it is a story at all comes back to the failure of politicians to implement  necessary legislation for over twenty years.

according to the woman's husband they were told by a member of the medical staff that a termination was not possible as ireland was a ''catholic contry''. now this may have been said as an expression of exasperation with the status quo or as an explanation of why  the status quo was the way it was.

either way it seems to point at the fact that the reason for not preforming the procedure earlier was not based solely on medical considerations.

The "Catholic country" quote is what makes this story. It contextualises what happened, places it at the centre of the culture war and has extra resonance because this poor woman was Indian.

But it's an unattributed quote. We don't know who said it, when it was said, in what context it was said, nothing. The media have created a storm that will sell many papers but right now we know nothing about what happened other than the fact that a woman has died who need not have died.

Would a termination have saved her? What were the steps that were taken to save her? What steps weren't taken? I am fairly sure that these decisions between the life the fetus and the life of the mother are made all the time in difficult pregnancies. Naive to think they're not. This was one that went wrong and we don't yet know why it went wrong. But not everyone wants to know why it went wrong, because could waste a potentially excellent weapon in the culture war.

Once this snowball gets rolling it could bring the government down, with fissure developing in both parties. Amazing to think it, but very far from impossible.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11342247

2010, breach of human right to private life, new legislation and/or guidelines recommended back then.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/14/ireland-abortion-ban-history

http://www.forbes.com/sites/womensenews/2012/08/27/abortion-law-decisions-coming-to-catholic-ireland/

executive summary of the 2010 case which outlined the lack of legislation and/or guidelines...

A,B,C v Ireland (application no: 25579/05) Grand Chamber 16/12/2010

Executive Summary                                                                                                                      In Irish law, abortion is prohibited under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Under Article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution the State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees to respect the mother in national laws. In the X case in 1992, the Supreme Court held that abortion was lawful in Ireland, if there was a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother. No legislation regulating that right was ever enacted, a fact regretted by the Supreme Court in its 1992 Judgment.

A and B travelled to the United Kingdom for abortions for reasons of health and/ or wellbeing. C who was in remission from cancer, argued before the Court that, although she believed her pregnancy put her life at risk, there was no procedure by which she could have established whether she qualified for a lawful abortion in Ireland on grounds of the risk to her life. She therefore travelled to the UK for an abortion. All three applicants claimed that the restriction on abortion in Ireland violated their right to respect for their private life under Article 8 of the ECHR.

With regard to the first and second applicants, A and B, the Court observed that the consensus  which existed among the majority of the members States of the Council of Europe allowing broader access to abortion than under Irish law was not sufficient to narrow the broad "margin of appreciation" which the State enjoyed on the issue of abortion.
Having regard to the constitutionally protected right to travel and the availability of appropriate pre- and post-abortion medical care in Ireland, as well as to the fact that the impugned prohibition in Ireland on abortion for health or well-being reasons was based on the moral values of the Irish people the Court concluded that, the existing prohibition on abortion in Ireland struck a fair balance between the right of A and B to respect for their private lives and the rights invoked on behalf of the unborn.
The Court thus found that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the ECHR by eleven votes to six.
With regard to C, the Court considered that the establishment of any risk to her life concerned essential aspects of her right to respect for her private life. The only non-judicial means existing in Ireland for determining such a risk, the ordinary medical consultation between a woman and her doctor, was deemed to be ineffective by the Court. The uncertainty surrounding such a process was influenced by the criminal provisions of the 1861 Act which put both doctors and women in fear of possible criminal prosecution. Recourse to the constitutional courts was also deemed ineffective, as the courts were not appropriate for the primary determination of whether a woman qualified for a lawful abortion. It was likewise inappropriate to ask women to pursue such complex constitutional proceedings when their right to have an abortion if pregnancy posed a threat to their life was not disputed. In any event, it was unclear how the courts were to enforce any mandatory order requiring doctors to carry out an abortion, given the lack of clear information from the Government to the Court as regards lawful abortions currently carried out in Ireland.
The Court concluded that existing procedures where ineffective to allow C to establish her right to a lawful abortion in Ireland given the risk to her life. Moreover, there was no explanation why the existing constitutional right had not been implemented to date despite recognition that further legal clarity was required. The Court thus concluded unanimously that Ireland had breached C's right under Article 8 given the State's failure to secure effective respect for her private life by reason of the absence of any implementing legislative or regulatory regime providing an accessible and effective procedure by which she could have established whether she qualified for a lawful abortion in Ireland.

Quote from: IolarCoisCuain on November 14, 2012, 05:32:05 PM

Quote from: guy crouchback on November 14, 2012, 05:13:18 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on November 14, 2012, 04:59:52 PM
Guy Crouchback has already decided that it was the lack of an abortion that caused this poor woman's death according to the title of the thread.
Is he/she suitably medically qualified to make such a judgement from one newspaper report?

I'm not medically qualified to make any decision, and I'm only going on what has been reported throughout the day and on the interviews with the woman's husband. i have started this thread  because this is turning into a massive story that at present is being reported all over Europe and by tomorrow will be world wide.

this story is different because the reason it is a story at all comes back to the failure of politicians to implement  necessary legislation for over twenty years.

according to the woman's husband they were told by a member of the medical staff that a termination was not possible as ireland was a ''catholic contry''. now this may have been said as an expression of exasperation with the status quo or as an explanation of why  the status quo was the way it was.

either way it seems to point at the fact that the reason for not preforming the procedure earlier was not based solely on medical considerations.

The "Catholic country" quote is what makes this story. It contextualises what happened, places it at the centre of the culture war and has extra resonance because this poor woman was Indian.

But it's an unattributed quote. We don't know who said it, when it was said, in what context it was said, nothing. The media have created a storm that will sell many papers but right now we know nothing about what happened other than the fact that a woman has died who need not have died.

Would a termination have saved her? What were the steps that were taken to save her? What steps weren't taken? I am fairly sure that these decisions between the life the fetus and the life of the mother are made all the time in difficult pregnancies. Naive to think they're not. This was one that went wrong and we don't yet know why it went wrong. But not everyone wants to know why it went wrong, because could waste a potentially excellent weapon in the culture war.

Once this snowball gets rolling it could bring the government down, with fissure developing in both parties. Amazing to think it, but very far from impossible.

I'd say "this is a catholic country" was said sarcastically by whoever.

Irish abortion policy is a joke. It takes a tragedy like this to show it up for what it is.

Quote from: Rossfan on November 14, 2012, 04:59:52 PM
Guy Crouchback has already decided that it was the lack of an abortion that caused this poor woman's death according to the title of the thread.
Is he/she suitably medically qualified to make such a judgement from one newspaper report?

The poor woman must have been under tremendous stress for the 3 days they wouldn't help her.

If nothing else, this refutes the argument that abortion is a 'black and white issue', as some suggested on the Marie Stopes thread.

It's a very sad case.

Quote from: Ulick on November 14, 2012, 04:18:58 PM

Quote from: guy crouchback on November 14, 2012, 04:14:37 PM
i don't necessarily blame the medical persona involved although a lot of questions have to be answered ,this is ultimately a complete failure of our political class to take any sort of responsibility for hard decisions that had to be made

I would hold fire on that as it's my understanding they should have done a D&C if the mothers life was at risk - maybe that's different in the south? Either way Kenny's response to Adams in the Dáil this morning was shameful.

Why? What did he say?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/14/ireland-abortion-law-woman-death

The case of a woman denied an abortion at an Irish hospital who later died of blood poisoning must prompt the state to loosen its almost total ban on terminations, a member of one of the coalition parties in Dublin has said.

Two investigations – one by Ireland's health executive, the other by the hospital – are now under way into the circumstances of the death of the 31-year-old dentist at University Hospital Galway (UHG) who was denied a medical termination and allegedly told: "This is a Catholic country."

Savita Halappanavar's death has highlighted how the ban even can prevent women with life-threatening medical conditions getting an abortion in Irish hospitals.

She had turned up at UHG on 21 October and was found to be miscarrying but died of septicaemia a week later. She had asked medical staff several times over a three-day period to terminate the pregnancy.

An Irish Labour deputy in the Dáil, Patrick Nulty, said that in light of Halappanavar's death there was "pressing and urgent need" for parliament to "show responsibility and legislate", calling on his party and its Fine Gael partners to press ahead with reforming the abortion law.

It is understood her family is now considering taking legal action, arguing that the foetus should have been removed earlier to save the woman's life.

Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar, said her repeated requests were turned down because she was 17 weeks pregnant and staff could detect a foetal heartbeat. The 34-year-old engineer has since revealed that his wife spent two and a half days "in agony" until the foetal heartbeat stopped.

After the dead foetus was removed, he said, his wife was taken to the hospital's intensive care unit where she died on 28 October.

Recounting her final days in UHG, he said: "Savita was really in agony. She was very upset, but she accepted she was losing the baby. When the consultant came on the ward rounds on Monday morning Savita asked if they could not save the baby could they induce to end the pregnancy. The consultant said: 'As long as there is a foetal heartbeat we can't do anything.'

"Again on Tuesday morning, the ward rounds and the same discussion. The consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita [an Indian Hindu] said: 'I am neither Irish nor Catholic,' but they said there was nothing they could do.

"That evening she developed shakes and shivering and she was vomiting. She went to use the toilet and she collapsed. There were big alarms and a doctor took blood and started her on antibiotics.

"The next morning I said she was so sick and asked again that they just end it, but they said they couldn't."

He recollected the moment he heard that medical staff were moving his wife into intensive care.

"They said they were shifting her to intensive care. Her heart and pulse were low, her temperature was high. She was sedated and critical but stable. She stayed stable on Friday but by 7pm on Saturday they said her heart, kidneys and liver weren't functioning. She was critically ill. That night, we lost her."

The hospital said it could not discuss the details of an individual patient with the media but expressed its sympathy to the family.

A spokesman for the hospital, which is part of a group of medical centres in western Ireland, said: "Galway Roscommon University Hospitals Group (GRUHG) co-operates fully with coroners' inquests. In general, in the case of a maternal death, a number of procedures are followed, including a risk review of the case and the completion of a maternal death notification form.

"External experts are involved in the review and the family of the deceased are consulted on the terms of reference, are interviewed by the review team and given a copy of the final report."

The taoiseach, Enda Kenny, said he would not be rushed into any measures while the two independent inquiries were under way.

His health minister, James Reilly, is understood to have received a report meanwhile from a group of experts exploring the possibility of reforming Ireland's abortion laws. Women who have had terminations in England for medical reasons called on Reilly on Wednesday to publish the findings as soon as possible in the light of Savita Halappanavar's death.

"I think it would be only appropriate that the two investigations that are being carried out here are concluded," Kenny said.

At present the coalition government is preparing a report on possible legal reforms of abortion legislation in the light of a European court ruling in 2009 that declared the absolute ban to be a breach of women's human rights.

Nulty, TD for Dublin West, said: "The heartbreaking tragedy of the death of Savita Praveen Halappanavar is something which should cause every citizen in our republic to pause and reflect."

He added that the government should no longer "hide behind reports and delay tactics. It must act to protect women and their health. This issue cannot be swept aside and ignored as successive governments have done."

Intervention by the European court of human rights has forced Ireland to make some minimal changes to its abortion ban. Since the 1992 X case, in which a 14-year-old rape victim took on the state's ban not only on her having a termination in Ireland but also on her travelling abroad for an abortion, there have been some exceptional circumstances.

Since Europe ruled that there was a risk to the child's life if she was forced to go ahead with the pregnancy, guidelines have been set down on these rare and exceptional cases.

Ireland's Medical Council guidelines state that "abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the mother".

It adds: "Under current legal precedent, this exception includes where there is a clear and substantial risk to the life of the mother arising from a threat of suicide."

The guidance also informs doctors that they "should undertake a full assessment of any such risk in light of the clinical research on this issue".

And it advises that "rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy) is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving.

"In these exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while making every effort to preserve the life of the baby."

However, such decisions are often left to the discretion of individual doctors and their medical teams. The pressure group Terminations for Medical Reasons Ireland, which campaigns for women whose babies would die if they went full term into their pregnancies, points out that in many cases some Irish doctors will not even advise women on their rights to travel abroad for abortions, let alone recommend emergency terminations in Ireland.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

current situation seems full of holes. medical guidelines/guidance, doesn't overturn existing legislation. the current statute wins out over any guidance in this situation does it not?

having legislation to allow a termination when there is a risk to the life of the mother presents problems too, that law will be have to be interpreted and tested and have caselaw to clarify it, as all acts do, leaving the way open for more situations where there is uncertainty i'd have thought.

+ the above article makes a good point.... doctor's have politics too, how can hitherto checks and balances, statute or otherwise, make sure that decisions of this nature are taken in an unbiased way happen? it's such a divisive issue in ireland that it will be a problem preventing bias entering into the process.

that's the problem with democracy though. the popularist majority vote can be oppressive and need the law, in this case the ECHR, to even things up a bit to tell governments what they need to do. deserving of much contempt are the irish administrations that have dragged their heels on this one. perhaps those administrations thought that it wouldn't happen on their watch.

are there any repercussions for not acting upon the ECHR's ruling i wonder?

 

Denials coming now that the "Catholic country" comment was ever made. Also that there were underlying health problems was cast doubt on claims that "want of an abortion" was the cause of death.

Quote from: Ulick on November 14, 2012, 07:58:09 PM
Denials coming now that the "Catholic country" comment was ever made. Also that there were underlying health problems was cast doubt on claims that "want of an abortion" was the cause of death.

I can't see this being spun, Ulick.

Quote from: seafoid on November 14, 2012, 08:02:19 PM

Quote from: Ulick on November 14, 2012, 07:58:09 PM
Denials coming now that the "Catholic country" comment was ever made. Also that there were underlying health problems was cast doubt on claims that "want of an abortion" was the cause of death.

I can't see this being spun, Ulick.

It's been spinning since last night old stock. This debate is won - all the media outlets who splashed with "Ireland's Taliban" stories won't splash with clarifications if this turns out not to have been the case. Sometimes getting in first is all that matters.

Quote from: IolarCoisCuain on November 14, 2012, 08:16:06 PM

Quote from: seafoid on November 14, 2012, 08:02:19 PM

Quote from: Ulick on November 14, 2012, 07:58:09 PM
Denials coming now that the "Catholic country" comment was ever made. Also that there were underlying health problems was cast doubt on claims that "want of an abortion" was the cause of death.

I can't see this being spun, Ulick.

It's been spinning since last night old stock. This debate is won - all the media outlets who splashed with "Ireland's Taliban" stories won't splash with clarifications if this turns out not to have been the case. Sometimes getting in first is all that matters.

the 'catholic country' quote originated from the husband did it not and his story is the one that resonates truthfully. hospital/health authority commenting prior to an investigation of what went on is just spin. distasteful spin mind. what i mean is i can't see them spinning their way out of it. it's too big a story. too scandalous. will have to be investigated independently. health authority can't be anywhere near this. how it can be truly independent when government is accountable too is anyone's guess. a mess.   

There is a wise old Irish adage to advise on situations where insufficient evidence is available or facts are in doubt, ( Say nothing till you hear more)

Quote from: Pangurban on November 14, 2012, 08:51:03 PM
There is a wise old Irish adage to advise on situations where insufficient evidence is available or facts are in doubt, ( Say nothing till you hear more)

Wise my arse, this is a very very sad situation - and unfortunately there's a hint of the adage you allude to in the days leading up to the girls death and in the lack of government direction with implementing concrete legislation which (forgetting completely about the pro life vs pro choice debate) will strive to protect a pregnant mother in danger.

Unfortunately this will turn political, but it is a very very tragic story.

it's a horrific outcome to lack of legislation, but you have got to ask why government have taken so long to sort it. what's the crack with bringing in new legislation in ireland, papers followed by bill then act? what stage is this at if any? shambles.

If the child had no chance of survival then it should have been done, I am very much pro life but in this case it seems they fcuked it all up!

I would go as far to sat that inside a month, six weeks at the outside women who wanted one should have the right to have one, that said I find it disgusting when the baby is viable and they horse on and kill the baby.

May they both rest in peace, heads should roll for this, negligence seems to be the order of the day but I am sure the truth will come out shortly! :(

Quote from: IolarCoisCuain on November 14, 2012, 08:16:06 PM

Quote from: seafoid on November 14, 2012, 08:02:19 PM

Quote from: Ulick on November 14, 2012, 07:58:09 PM
Denials coming now that the "Catholic country" comment was ever made. Also that there were underlying health problems was cast doubt on claims that "want of an abortion" was the cause of death.

I can't see this being spun, Ulick.

It's been spinning since last night old stock. This debate is won - all the media outlets who splashed with "Ireland's Taliban" stories won't splash with clarifications if this turns out not to have been the case. Sometimes getting in first is all that matters.

There is no comeback on this. There is no story that can make it better.

Quote from: cadence on November 14, 2012, 08:27:06 PM

Quote from: IolarCoisCuain on November 14, 2012, 08:16:06 PM

Quote from: seafoid on November 14, 2012, 08:02:19 PM

Quote from: Ulick on November 14, 2012, 07:58:09 PM
Denials coming now that the "Catholic country" comment was ever made. Also that there were underlying health problems was cast doubt on claims that "want of an abortion" was the cause of death.

I can't see this being spun, Ulick.

It's been spinning since last night old stock. This debate is won - all the media outlets who splashed with "Ireland's Taliban" stories won't splash with clarifications if this turns out not to have been the case. Sometimes getting in first is all that matters.

the 'catholic country' quote originated from the husband did it not and his story is the one that resonates truthfully. hospital/health authority commenting prior to an investigation of what went on is just spin. distasteful spin mind. what i mean is i can't see them spinning their way out of it. it's too big a story. too scandalous. will have to be investigated independently. health authority can't be anywhere near this. how it can be truly independent when government is accountable too is anyone's guess. a mess.

Truthiness is is all well and good, but I'm old fashioned. I still like to hear all of what happened before coming to conclusions.

Quote from: IolarCoisCuain on November 14, 2012, 09:58:04 PM

Quote from: cadence on November 14, 2012, 08:27:06 PM

Quote from: IolarCoisCuain on November 14, 2012, 08:16:06 PM

Quote from: seafoid on November 14, 2012, 08:02:19 PM

Quote from: Ulick on November 14, 2012, 07:58:09 PM
Denials coming now that the "Catholic country" comment was ever made. Also that there were underlying health problems was cast doubt on claims that "want of an abortion" was the cause of death.

I can't see this being spun, Ulick.

It's been spinning since last night old stock. This debate is won - all the media outlets who splashed with "Ireland's Taliban" stories won't splash with clarifications if this turns out not to have been the case. Sometimes getting in first is all that matters.

the 'catholic country' quote originated from the husband did it not and his story is the one that resonates truthfully. hospital/health authority commenting prior to an investigation of what went on is just spin. distasteful spin mind. what i mean is i can't see them spinning their way out of it. it's too big a story. too scandalous. will have to be investigated independently. health authority can't be anywhere near this. how it can be truly independent when government is accountable too is anyone's guess. a mess.

Truthiness is is all well and good, but I'm old fashioned. I still like to hear all of what happened before coming to conclusions.

fair enough. find it hard to believe that anything other than lack of legislation placing duty of care on hospital has happened here though. if hospital are implying otherwise, they are talking prior to any investigation and have not provided any hard evidence to back this up. talking shit comes to mind.

Quote from: cadence on November 14, 2012, 09:18:52 PM
it's a horrific outcome to lack of legislation, but you have got to ask why government have taken so long to sort it. what's the crack with bringing in new legislation in ireland, papers followed by bill then act? what stage is this at if any? shambles.

Various governments have been kicking the abortion legislation can down the road for 20+ years now. They have all been absolutely shit-scared to stir up that particular hornets nest sadly and in this case tragically.

Quote from: Puckoon on November 14, 2012, 08:56:55 PM

Quote from: Pangurban on November 14, 2012, 08:51:03 PM
There is a wise old Irish adage to advise on situations where insufficient evidence is available or facts are in doubt, ( Say nothing till you hear more)

Wise my arse, this is a very very sad situation - and unfortunately there's a hint of the adage you allude to in the days leading up to the girls death and in the lack of government direction with implementing concrete legislation which (forgetting completely about the pro life vs pro choice debate) will strive to protect a pregnant mother in danger.

Unfortunately this will turn political, but it is a very very tragic story.

Very good post Puckoon, bringing it back to the tragedy at hand.

I realise people are saying wait and see what the evidence is, but if so, how has the story come this far?

Surely, given the recent scandal of newspaper stories and RTE documentaries, editors and journalists are watertight on their reports?

Not to belittle the tragedy at hand, but I wonder if there is a forum in India with a "things that make you go what the f**k" - if so , this would be right there as one of those stories.

Like it or not, the story is there for international consumption and for even a shard of it to be true is shocking.

I really feel for Praveen Halappanavar, having to deal with losing a child and wife.

Quote from: Ulick on November 14, 2012, 07:58:09 PM
Also that there were underlying health problems was cast doubt on claims that "want of an abortion" was the cause of death.

Septicaemia was the cause of death,  after nearly waiting for 3 days in extreme pain. Maybe you should investigate a little into miscarriage and septicemia risks?
Can it be determined that her life would have been saved if the pregnancy had been aborted when it was medically obvious that the baby would not survive?  I don't know.
But to allow her to wait that long  when there was medically no chance for the baby to survive  just because there was a heartbeat, and just intervene when there was no longer a heartbeat, is a medical and moral absurdity.

Quote from: GalwayBayBoy on November 14, 2012, 10:44:17 PM

Quote from: cadence on November 14, 2012, 09:18:52 PM
it's a horrific outcome to lack of legislation, but you have got to ask why government have taken so long to sort it. what's the crack with bringing in new legislation in ireland, papers followed by bill then act? what stage is this at if any? shambles.

Various governments have been kicking the abortion legislation can down the road for 20+ years now. They have all been absolutely shit-scared to stir up that particular hornets nest sadly and in this case tragically.

savage. it's one thing to be found acting unlawfully in 2010 and another to mess around and still be no further down the road apart from being waiting for a report.

Quote from: Ulick on November 14, 2012, 07:58:09 PM
Denials coming now that the "Catholic country" comment was ever made. Also that there were underlying health problems was cast doubt on claims that "want of an abortion" was the cause of death.

She died from septacemia.

Quote from: Main Street on November 14, 2012, 10:56:08 PM

Quote from: Ulick on November 14, 2012, 07:58:09 PM
Also that there were underlying health problems was cast doubt on claims that "want of an abortion" was the cause of death.

Septicaemia was the cause of death,  after nearly waiting for 3 days in extreme pain. Maybe you should investigate a little into miscarriage and septicemia risks?
Can it be determined that her life would have been saved if the pregnancy had been aborted when it was medically obvious that the baby would not survive?  I don't know.
But to allow her to wait that long  when there was medically no chance for the baby to survive  just because there was a heartbeat, and just intervene when there was no longer a heartbeat, is a medical and moral absurdity.

And you are sure that's what happened? With no doubts at all?

Quote from: trileacman on November 14, 2012, 11:09:24 PM

Quote from: Main Street on November 14, 2012, 10:56:08 PM

Quote from: Ulick on November 14, 2012, 07:58:09 PM
Also that there were underlying health problems was cast doubt on claims that "want of an abortion" was the cause of death.

Septicaemia was the cause of death,  after nearly waiting for 3 days in extreme pain. Maybe you should investigate a little into miscarriage and septicemia risks?
Can it be determined that her life would have been saved if the pregnancy had been aborted when it was medically obvious that the baby would not survive?  I don't know.
But to allow her to wait that long  when there was medically no chance for the baby to survive  just because there was a heartbeat, and just intervene when there was no longer a heartbeat, is a medical and moral absurdity.

And you are sure that's what happened? With no doubts at all?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/14/savita-alappanavar-death-unanswered-questions

denis campbell, health correspondent, guardian...

While the exact events preceding Savita Halappanavar's death are unclear, the heart-wrenching account her husband has given raises urgent questions about the medical management of her case.

According to reports, on the Tuesday morning, she asked to terminate her pregnancy, given her own worsening health and that the 17-week-old foetus was unviable because she was miscarrying, a fact that her husband Praveen said became clear soon after she arrived at the hospital.

But the request was apparently refused, the couple were told that it was against the abortion laws and that "this is a Catholic country".

"That evening [the Tuesday] she developed shakes and shivering and she was vomiting ... a doctor took blood and started her on antibiotics," said Praveen. She later died of an infection.

Sepsis – blood poisoning – is now the leading cause of direct maternal death in the UK, according to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

"Infection can come out of nowhere and kill you very quickly," said one senior NHS doctor and specialist in this area the Guardian spoke to.

The growing number of deaths from sepsis – 13 in 2003-05, 29 in 2006-08 – prompted the RCOG to send a safety alert to its members in April, warning them to be aware of the signs and act quickly when they appeared, as failure to recognise its signs had featured in "many" deaths related to it.

The inquiries now under way will have to establish when doctors should have realised Savita had an infection and decided that there was a risk to her life, not just her health. The distinction is vital because Ireland supposedly allows abortion only when the mother's life is at risk.

Any woman in labour, whether her labour is proving straightforward or not, is at risk of infection once her waters break, as the waters protect both her and the baby from infection.

Savita appeared to be in trouble as early as Sunday. The apparent failure to recognise that risk then, and to start her on antibiotics until the Tuesday night, will be the most urgent question for those investigating.

Heard on the radio tonight the inquiry will take three months. That's shocking. Seems fairly clear to me the hospital fucked it up at a number of points. Better for everyone if they conducted a swift inquiry and make a clean breast of it all. The thing is bad enough as it is without being mealy-mouthed about it.

Quote from: IolarCoisCuain on November 14, 2012, 11:46:41 PM
Heard on the radio tonight the inquiry will take three months. That's shocking. Seems fairly clear to me the hospital fucked it up at a number of points. Better for everyone if they conducted a swift inquiry and make a clean breast of it all. The thing is bad enough as it is without being mealy-mouthed about it.

after 3 months the furore will have died down and she'll just be that indian woman who died remember her?

I remember about 15 years ago seeing something like this, where an Irish hospital ethics committee blocked some woman's treatment on theological grounds and she ended up dying as a result. Damned if I can remember the details or the names of people involved, trying Google right now...

Not the case I had in mind but a terminally ill woman was refused an abortion in Cork in 2010 (http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Terminally-ill-woman-refused-abortion-in-Cork-hospital--112236794.html#axzz2CFSzx7Oa) and had to go to England for it.

While a full enquiry is clearly necessary, and whatever its outcome, i doubt that its findings will influence any of the agenda driven idealogues, many of whom are posting on this forum. The usual liberal media outlets will play this big, in the hope of advancing their real agenda, before the facts maybe get in the way of their story.. The use of a sad tragic event as propaganda is despicable,and insulting to the family concerned, who at this tragic time need our prayers and support. The media and public forums such as this do no one any service, by attempting to pre-judge the result of an enquiry. Time enough for public debate when all the facts have emerged, until then a little decorum is required

My approach to a subject like this is usually that it's okay to discuss the underlying issues.  I don't accept the "let's keep quiet while people are grieving" argument.  The gun lobby has been using that old trope to squelch all discussion about gun control in the USA for decades, always arguing that it's always a bad time to discuss it.  No, it's always a good time to talk about these issues.  Maybe hold off on the specifics of one particular case before the facts are in, that's fair enough. But it's okay to talk about the rights and wrongs of hospitals feeling that they have to put a woman's life at risk because of an unclear law.

a little bit of censorship goes a long way eh? what a crock.

as far as i can make out, because the baby still had a heartbeat, they couldn't terminate, despite the fact that the mother had septicaemia. there is another suggestion that the hospital missed the septicaemia, and hence this was the reason there was no termination, not because of the law. doctors are hardly going to be experts on this type of situation in pregnancies when they don't get to actually practice on real live patients.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2012/nov/14/abortion-should-remain-legal?intcmp=239

to pitch pro-abortion in 'liberal' agendas terms is way off the mark. there are serious human rights and health equality issues here. even further than the echr ruling that article 8 of human rights were breached, this woman's right to life has been breached. despite being told by the echr that its law and procedures for terminations, when there is a risk to the mother's life, breached article 8 of human rights, ireland has persisted with the same law leading to this case. a woman has died because ireland has not changed its law.

I've been doing a wee bit of research on this.  First of all while I have a great regard for The Manchester Guardian as a newspaper it is very much pro-choice and strongly anti-Catholic Church and most of its "debate" is founded on this.  Not that there's anything wrong with this but it's worth bearing in mind.  Going by its most famous editor C P Scott's adage "Comment is free but the facts are sacred" what I've been able to glean on the medical side (I'm no expert and this may not be 100% accurate...doctors have opinions too!)

Would earlier intervention have resulted in Ms Hallappnavar's death being avoided?  Impossible to say, though it could have increased her chances of survival.  As we know, no medical procedure, from an ingrown toenail up to brain surgery, is 100% risk free or 100% guaranteed to succeed.

Could Ms Hallappnavar have presented already infected with septicaemia and Ecoli?  Haven't been able to get a clear answer on this but it appears that leaving the cervix dilated for 2.5 - 3 days (as reported) certainly would have been detrimental to her health.

The reported comment about "Catholic country".  Was this not the opinion of an individual doctor/nurse rather than government policy or state law?

Moving on, again I'm certainly not an expert on The Constitution but is it the case that the Constitution supersedes legislation (or the lack of it) and offers citizens protection and rights in an area where law does not exist or is unclear?  In other words does the Constitution not provide for a termination in cases and therefore protect the doctor from any possible legal proceedings?

Reading through the Medical Council's guidelines and comparing those with what has been reported it would appear to me (a non-expert) that the issue here is not the lack of a legislative framework or any alleged backwardness of Ireland as a country (read some of the below the line comments in the Guardian pieces) or any pernicious influence the Catholic Church may have on society but human error.

So, what we actually need to hear in this case is what the doctors say happened.  Now if as reported this is going to take 3 months then that's unacceptable for all involved.

Quote from: AQMP on November 15, 2012, 09:16:51 AM
I've been doing a wee bit of research on this.  First of all while I have a great regard for The Manchester Guardian as a newspaper it is very much pro-choice and strongly anti-Catholic Church and most of its "debate" is founded on this.  Not that there's anything wrong with this but it's worth bearing in mind.  Going by its most famous editor C P Scott's adage "Comment is free but the facts are sacred" what I've been able to glean on the medical side (I'm no expert and this may not be 100% accurate...doctors have opinions too!)

Would earlier intervention have resulted in Ms Hallappnavar's death being avoided?  Impossible to say, though it could have increased her chances of survival.  As we know, no medical procedure, from an ingrown toenail up to brain surgery, is 100% risk free or 100% guaranteed to succeed.

Could Ms Hallappnavar have presented already infected with septicaemia and Ecoli?  Haven't been able to get a clear answer on this but it appears that leaving the cervix dilated for 2.5 - 3 days (as reported) certainly would have been detrimental to her health.

The reported comment about "Catholic country".  Was this not the opinion of an individual doctor/nurse rather than government policy or state law?

Moving on, again I'm certainly not an expert on The Constitution but is it the case that the Constitution supersedes legislation (or the lack of it) and offers citizens protection and rights in an area where law does not exist or is unclear?  In other words does the Constitution not provide for a termination in cases and therefore protect the doctor from any possible legal proceedings?

Reading through the Medical Council's guidelines and comparing those with what has been reported it would appear to me (a non-expert) that the issue here is not the lack of a legislative framework or any alleged backwardness of Ireland as a country (read some of the below the line comments in the Guardian pieces) or any pernicious influence the Catholic Church may have on society but human error.

So, what we actually need to hear in this case is what the doctors say happened.  Now if as reported this is going to take 3 months then that's unacceaptable for all involved.

i think the point the guardian are making is valid... ireland being a catholic country in which there is a large part of the population with strong anti-abortion beliefs, formulated to a large degree by said church's own beliefs. legislation around abortion is divisive and successive irish administrations have not dealt with it, either because they agree with the current situation or because they are unwilling to take on the fall out at the ballot box and within their own parties  for dealing with it.

sometimes it's hard to be objective on your own failings. the guardian's fairly clear on it i'd say.

Quote from: trileacman on November 14, 2012, 11:09:24 PM

Quote from: Main Street on November 14, 2012, 10:56:08 PM

Quote from: Ulick on November 14, 2012, 07:58:09 PM
Also that there were underlying health problems was cast doubt on claims that "want of an abortion" was the cause of death.

Septicaemia was the cause of death,  after nearly waiting for 3 days in extreme pain. Maybe you should investigate a little into miscarriage and septicemia risks?
Can it be determined that her life would have been saved if the pregnancy had been aborted when it was medically obvious that the baby would not survive?  I don't know.
But to allow her to wait that long  when there was medically no chance for the baby to survive  just because there was a heartbeat, and just intervene when there was no longer a heartbeat, is a medical and moral absurdity.

And you are sure that's what happened? With no doubts at all?

I suppose you could go to a dentist with a horrible pain in one tooth, massive swelling and sepsis in the gum and the dentist could miss the connection.  If so that would be a total medical absurdity.
If the reason given for not intervening because the dentist bound by a legal code to wait until the tooth was verified died, then that would be a moral and medical absurdity.
The hospital medics did not offer a diagnosis that they would not intervene because the symptoms did not call for it, it is claimed they quoted the legality of non intervention

Here are the facts
She had a medical diagnosis that her baby would not survive.
She had all the symptoms of septicemia.
Her condition deteriorated by the hour.
The medics waited until the foetal heartbeat stopped, before intervening.
Her death was caused by septicemia.

Quote from: AQMP on November 15, 2012, 09:16:51 AM
Reading through the Medical Council's guidelines and comparing those with what has been reported it would appear to me (a non-expert) that the issue here is not the lack of a legislative framework or any alleged backwardness of Ireland as a country (read some of the below the line comments in the Guardian pieces) or any pernicious influence the Catholic Church may have on society but human error.

I'm pro-choice, but I think using this case as a wedge with which to ram home legislation for abortion is a risky business. What if it transpires that this was something that could not have been foreseen or was the consequence of medical incompetence, things that no amount of legislation could deal with? The pro-lifers will then be crowing that everything is fine and the chances of legalised abortion in this country will be even further away.

Quote from: deiseach on November 15, 2012, 09:41:29 AM

Quote from: AQMP on November 15, 2012, 09:16:51 AM
Reading through the Medical Council's guidelines and comparing those with what has been reported it would appear to me (a non-expert) that the issue here is not the lack of a legislative framework or any alleged backwardness of Ireland as a country (read some of the below the line comments in the Guardian pieces) or any pernicious influence the Catholic Church may have on society but human error.

I'm pro-choice, but I think using this case as a wedge with which to ram home legislation for abortion is a risky business. What if it transpires that this was something that could not have been foreseen or was the consequence of medical incompetence, things that no amount of legislation could deal with? The pro-lifers will then be crowing that everything is fine and the chances of legalised abortion in this country will be even further away.

I dunno Deiseach. They were able to get the bank guarantee sorted out overnight.
It's just cowardice in the case of legislating for the X case.

Quote from: seafoid on November 15, 2012, 10:01:35 AM
I dunno Deiseach. They were able to get the bank guarantee sorted out overnight.
It's just cowardice in the case of legislating for the X case.

Of course it is. But if this case turns out as I suggested, they'll be able to take the cowardly way out.

Quote from: seafoid on November 14, 2012, 05:50:31 PM

Quote from: IolarCoisCuain on November 14, 2012, 05:32:05 PM

Quote from: guy crouchback on November 14, 2012, 05:13:18 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on November 14, 2012, 04:59:52 PM
Guy Crouchback has already decided that it was the lack of an abortion that caused this poor woman's death according to the title of the thread.
Is he/she suitably medically qualified to make such a judgement from one newspaper report?

I'm not medically qualified to make any decision, and I'm only going on what has been reported throughout the day and on the interviews with the woman's husband. i have started this thread  because this is turning into a massive story that at present is being reported all over Europe and by tomorrow will be world wide.

this story is different because the reason it is a story at all comes back to the failure of politicians to implement  necessary legislation for over twenty years.

according to the woman's husband they were told by a member of the medical staff that a termination was not possible as ireland was a ''catholic contry''. now this may have been said as an expression of exasperation with the status quo or as an explanation of why  the status quo was the way it was.

either way it seems to point at the fact that the reason for not preforming the procedure earlier was not based solely on medical considerations.

The "Catholic country" quote is what makes this story. It contextualises what happened, places it at the centre of the culture war and has extra resonance because this poor woman was Indian.

But it's an unattributed quote. We don't know who said it, when it was said, in what context it was said, nothing. The media have created a storm that will sell many papers but right now we know nothing about what happened other than the fact that a woman has died who need not have died.

Would a termination have saved her? What were the steps that were taken to save her? What steps weren't taken? I am fairly sure that these decisions between the life the fetus and the life of the mother are made all the time in difficult pregnancies. Naive to think they're not. This was one that went wrong and we don't yet know why it went wrong. But not everyone wants to know why it went wrong, because could waste a potentially excellent weapon in the culture war.

Once this snowball gets rolling it could bring the government down, with fissure developing in both parties. Amazing to think it, but very far from impossible.

I'd say "this is a catholic country" was said sarcastically by whoever.

Irish abortion policy is a joke. It takes a tragedy like this to show it up for what it is.

Thought it's not clear that the original allegation that Praveen Halappanavar was told this is a Catholic country comes directly from himself, I heard him assert the allegation last night in an interview on one of the UK TV news programmes (I can't remember which, as I watched a lot of different news channels last night, but I think it was Channel 4). The relevant part of the conversation was as follows (in paraphrase):

Reporter - And can you confirm that the medical staff <not sure if that was the exact phrase> told you "this is a catholic country"?
PH - Yes.

Quote from: cadence on November 15, 2012, 09:32:36 AM

Quote from: AQMP on November 15, 2012, 09:16:51 AM
I've been doing a wee bit of research on this.  First of all while I have a great regard for The Manchester Guardian as a newspaper it is very much pro-choice and strongly anti-Catholic Church and most of its "debate" is founded on this.  Not that there's anything wrong with this but it's worth bearing in mind.  Going by its most famous editor C P Scott's adage "Comment is free but the facts are sacred" what I've been able to glean on the medical side (I'm no expert and this may not be 100% accurate...doctors have opinions too!)

Would earlier intervention have resulted in Ms Hallappnavar's death being avoided?  Impossible to say, though it could have increased her chances of survival.  As we know, no medical procedure, from an ingrown toenail up to brain surgery, is 100% risk free or 100% guaranteed to succeed.

Could Ms Hallappnavar have presented already infected with septicaemia and Ecoli?  Haven't been able to get a clear answer on this but it appears that leaving the cervix dilated for 2.5 - 3 days (as reported) certainly would have been detrimental to her health.

The reported comment about "Catholic country".  Was this not the opinion of an individual doctor/nurse rather than government policy or state law?

Moving on, again I'm certainly not an expert on The Constitution but is it the case that the Constitution supersedes legislation (or the lack of it) and offers citizens protection and rights in an area where law does not exist or is unclear?  In other words does the Constitution not provide for a termination in cases and therefore protect the doctor from any possible legal proceedings?

Reading through the Medical Council's guidelines and comparing those with what has been reported it would appear to me (a non-expert) that the issue here is not the lack of a legislative framework or any alleged backwardness of Ireland as a country (read some of the below the line comments in the Guardian pieces) or any pernicious influence the Catholic Church may have on society but human error.

So, what we actually need to hear in this case is what the doctors say happened.  Now if as reported this is going to take 3 months then that's unacceaptable for all involved.

i think the point the guardian are making is valid... ireland being a catholic country in which there is a large part of the population with strong anti-abortion beliefs, formulated to a large degree by said church's own beliefs. legislation around abortion is divisive and successive irish administrations have not dealt with it, either because they agree with the current situation or because they are unwilling to take on the fall out at the ballot box and within their own parties  for dealing with it.

sometimes it's hard to be objective on your own failings. the guardian's fairly clear on it i'd say.

As I say I'm a big fan of the Guardian but in this case some of its reporting of the facts has been selective and in some cases inaccurate.  What we need is the hospital's version of events before we can judge who was responsible?

Quote from: deiseach on November 15, 2012, 09:41:29 AM

Quote from: AQMP on November 15, 2012, 09:16:51 AM
Reading through the Medical Council's guidelines and comparing those with what has been reported it would appear to me (a non-expert) that the issue here is not the lack of a legislative framework or any alleged backwardness of Ireland as a country (read some of the below the line comments in the Guardian pieces) or any pernicious influence the Catholic Church may have on society but human error.

I'm pro-choice, but I think using this case as a wedge with which to ram home legislation for abortion is a risky business. What if it transpires that this was something that could not have been foreseen or was the consequence of medical incompetence, things that no amount of legislation could deal with? The pro-lifers will then be crowing that everything is fine and the chances of legalised abortion in this country will be even further away.

I agree with you here deiseach, there's an old saying in legal circles "law made on the hoof is generally bad law"

Quote from: Hardy on November 15, 2012, 10:14:43 AM

Quote from: seafoid on November 14, 2012, 05:50:31 PM

Quote from: IolarCoisCuain on November 14, 2012, 05:32:05 PM

Quote from: guy crouchback on November 14, 2012, 05:13:18 PM

Quote from: Rossfan on November 14, 2012, 04:59:52 PM
Guy Crouchback has already decided that it was the lack of an abortion that caused this poor woman's death according to the title of the thread.
Is he/she suitably medically qualified to make such a judgement from one newspaper report?

I'm not medically qualified to make any decision, and I'm only going on what has been reported throughout the day and on the interviews with the woman's husband. i have started this thread  because this is turning into a massive story that at present is being reported all over Europe and by tomorrow will be world wide.

this story is different because the reason it is a story at all comes back to the failure of politicians to implement  necessary legislation for over twenty years.

according to the woman's husband they were told by a member of the medical staff that a termination was not possible as ireland was a ''catholic contry''. now this may have been said as an expression of exasperation with the status quo or as an explanation of why  the status quo was the way it was.

either way it seems to point at the fact that the reason for not preforming the procedure earlier was not based solely on medical considerations.

The "Catholic country" quote is what makes this story. It contextualises what happened, places it at the centre of the culture war and has extra resonance because this poor woman was Indian.

But it's an unattributed quote. We don't know who said it, when it was said, in what context it was said, nothing. The media have created a storm that will sell many papers but right now we know nothing about what happened other than the fact that a woman has died who need not have died.

Would a termination have saved her? What were the steps that were taken to save her? What steps weren't taken? I am fairly sure that these decisions between the life the fetus and the life of the mother are made all the time in difficult pregnancies. Naive to think they're not. This was one that went wrong and we don't yet know why it went wrong. But not everyone wants to know why it went wrong, because could waste a potentially excellent weapon in the culture war.

Once this snowball gets rolling it could bring the government down, with fissure developing in both parties. Amazing to think it, but very far from impossible.

I'd say "this is a catholic country" was said sarcastically by whoever.

Irish abortion policy is a joke. It takes a tragedy like this to show it up for what it is.

Thought it's not clear that the original allegation that Praveen Halappanavar was told this is a Catholic country comes directly from himself, I heard him assert the allegation last night in an interview on one of the UK TV news programmes (I can't remember which, as I watched a lot of different news channels last night, but I think it was Channel 4). The relevant part of the conversation was as follows (in paraphrase):

Reporter - And can you confirm that the medical staff <not sure if that was the exact phrase> told you "this is a catholic country"?
PH - Yes.

Based on mass attendance I'd say Ireland is more of a post catholic country .How many couples follow church teaching on contraception, for example? Abortion is like the last stand of a culture that once ran the country. 
Accusing the Guardian of anti catholicism is very poor form as well.

It's not a Catholic (or indeeed catholic) country. Nevertheless, this is the major point of the story that's going out worldwide.

Quote from: Hardy on November 15, 2012, 10:30:21 AM
It's not a Catholic (or indeeed catholic) country. Nevertheless, this is the major point of the story that's going out worldwide.

Not for the first time the legal system is way behind the times. Does Ireland have a bank resolution law yet ?

Good article here from a leading OB/GYN:
http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/did-irish-catholic-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/

This is what is known. Savita Halappanavar was 31 years old and happy to be pregnant with her first child. Then, at 17 weeks, tragedy struck and she was "found to be miscarrying." Her husband reports that she was in "severe pain" for three days at the hospital and a termination was requested. He says this request was denied because Ireland is "a Catholic country." He and his late wife were led to believe that the law would only allow her to be delivered when there was no fetal heartbeat.

What does the standard of medical care say about this treatment? Without access to the chart, "miscarrying" at 17 weeks can only mean one of three things"

A) Ruptured membranes

B) Advanced cervical dilation

C) Labor (this is unlikely, although it is possible that she had preterm labor that arrested and left her with scenario B, advanced cervical dilation).

All three of these scenarios have a dismal prognosis, none of which should involve the death of the mother.

The standard of care with ruptured membranes (scenario A) is to offer termination or, if there is no evidence of infection and the pregnancy is desired, the option of observing for a few days to see if the leak seals over and more fluid accumulates. If no fluid accumulates and by some chance the pregnancy manages to go beyond 24 weeks (the vast majority of pregnancies with ruptured membranes delivery within a week), survival is unlikely given the lungs require amniotic fluid to develop. I have seen the rare case where a woman with no infection (and no fluid) elects conservative management in the hopes that might make it to at least 24 weeks in the pregnancy, however, I have never heard of a baby surviving in this scenario. Regardless, if at any point infection is suspected the treatment is antibiotics and delivery not antibiotics alone.

The standard of care with scenario B involves offering delivery or possibly a rescue cerclage (a stitch around the cervix to try to prevent further dilation and thus delivery) depending on the situation. Inducing delivery (or a D and E) is offered because a cervix that has dilated significantly often leads to labor or an infection as the membranes are now exposed to the vaginal flora. Many women do not want wait for infection. A rescue cerclage is not without risks and is contraindicated with ruptured membranes or any sign of infection. Rescue cerclage is a very case by case intervention and well beyond the scope of this post. These decisions are difficult and the mark of good medical care is that all scenarios are discussed, all interventions that are technically possible offered, and then the patient makes an informed decision. All with the understanding that if infection develops, delivery is indicated.

Not only do I know these scenarios backwards and forwards as an OB/GYN, I had ruptured membranes in my own pregnancy at 22 weeks, a rescue cerclage, and then sepsis. I know how bad it can be.

As Ms. Halappanavar died of an infection, one that would have been brewing for several days if not longer, the fact that a termination was delayed for any reason is malpractice. Infection must always be suspected whenever, preterm labor, premature rupture of the membranes, or advanced premature cervical dilation occurs (one of the scenarios that would have brought Ms. Halappanavar to the hospital).

As there is no medically acceptable scenario at 17 weeks where a woman is miscarrying AND is denied a termination, there can only be three plausible explanations for Ms. Hapappanavar's "medical care" :

1) Irish law does indeed treat pregnant women as second class citizens and denies them appropriate medical care. The medical team was following the law to avoid criminal prosecution.

2) Irish law does not deny women the care they need; however, a zealous individual doctor or hospital administrator interpreted Catholic doctrine in such a way that a pregnant woman's medical care was somehow irrelevant and superceded by heart tones of a 17 weeks fetus that could never be viable.

3) Irish law allows abortions for women when medically necessary, but the doctors involved were negligent in that they could not diagnose infection when it was so obviously present, did not know the treatment, or were not competent enough to carry out the treatment.

What we do know is that a young, pregnant, woman who presented to the hospital in a first world country died for want of appropriate medical care. Whether it's Irish Catholic law or malpractice, only time will tell; however, no answer could possibly ease the pain and suffering of Ms. Halappanavar's loved ones.

****

Since posting this piece I learned that Ms. Halappanavar's widower reported that she was leaking amniotic fluid and was fully dilated when first evaluated. There is no medically defensible position for doing anything other than optimal pain control and hastening delivery by the safest means possible.

There we go again - "Irish catholic law". There is no such thing, but you would never think so as media and commentators merrily commentate as if there was. The definition of a lie seems to have become uncertain.

Quote from: Hardy on November 15, 2012, 11:04:17 AM
There we go again - "Irish catholic law". There is no such thing, but you would never think so as media and commentators merrily commentate as if there was. The definition of a lie seems to have become uncertain.

In fairness, is it not shorthand for "Irish law influenced by lobbying from the Roman Catholic Church?"

I'm sure it is, but it's very misleading and damaging shorthand, which is my point.

By the way, on reading her post, that Ob/Gyn's offering can be dismissed, as she ignores the most likely explanation in offering her "only three plausible explanations" for the outcome.

Quote from: Hardy on November 15, 2012, 11:11:49 AM
I'm sure it is, but it's very misleading and damaging shorthand, which is my point.

Point taken.

Quote from: Hardy on November 15, 2012, 11:11:49 AMBy the way, on reading her post, that Ob/Gyn's offering can be dismissed, as she ignores the most likely explanation in offering her "only three plausible explanations" for the outcome.

Which is?

Afaiu, the Irish law does not hinder the application of medical best practice in this case, aborting the dying foetus in a woman whose medical condition was deteriorating by the hour.

Quote from: deiseach on November 15, 2012, 11:12:44 AM

Quote from: Hardy on November 15, 2012, 11:11:49 AMBy the way, on reading her post, that Ob/Gyn's offering can be dismissed, as she ignores the most likely explanation in offering her "only three plausible explanations" for the outcome.

Which is?

It's close to her first explanation, but without the propagandist rhetoric.

The medical team had no law to follow, as the X case judgement modifies interpretation of the 19th century law, but this modified interpretation has not been defined in legislation and therefore the medical team considered themselves having to act as lawyers and interpret a supreme court judgement in making a medical decision.

Quote from: hmmm on November 15, 2012, 10:41:33 AM
Good article here from a leading OB/GYN:
http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/did-irish-catholic-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/

***

Good article, some of the comments to this particular article irk me, particularly the drivel wrote by Kelly Davis Jordan. " the religious, right wing, anti choice people are very vocal and obnoxoius, .." I really hate this sh"te talk, freedom of speech is ok for lefties provided you agree with their theories, ideas etc. I would be pro life in my thinking, in this case the life of the mother comes first, as the pregnancy, (as the facts are presented) did not seem viable. I thought this country was legally bound to carry out terminations in cases where the mothers life was at risk?

Quote from: Rudi on November 15, 2012, 01:59:36 PM

Quote from: hmmm on November 15, 2012, 10:41:33 AM
Good article here from a leading OB/GYN:
http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/did-irish-catholic-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/

***

Good article, some of the comments to this particular article irk me, particularly the drivel wrote by Kelly Davis Jordan. " the religious, right wing, anti choice people are very vocal and obnoxoius, .." I really hate this sh"te talk, freedom of speech is ok for lefties provided you agree with their theories, ideas etc. I would be pro life in my thinking, in this case the life of the mother comes first, as the pregnancy, (as the facts are presented) did not seem viable. I thought this country was legally bound to carry out terminations in cases where the mothers life was at risk?

There is a strong case of medical malpractice to answer for.
but it  remains to be seen if it was just plain old quackery (common medical malpractice)  or a deliberate decision taken to do malpractice - hiding behind a subjective false interpretation of the law.
I veer towards the latter,  because it's hard to comprehend that any medic would ignore every alarm bell ringing at top volume and make a string of bad judgement calls.

Quote from: Hardy on November 15, 2012, 11:20:38 AM

Quote from: deiseach on November 15, 2012, 11:12:44 AM

Quote from: Hardy on November 15, 2012, 11:11:49 AMBy the way, on reading her post, that Ob/Gyn's offering can be dismissed, as she ignores the most likely explanation in offering her "only three plausible explanations" for the outcome.

Which is?

It's close to her first explanation, but without the propagandist rhetoric.

The medical team had no law to follow, as the X case judgement modifies interpretation of the 19th century law, but this modified interpretation has not been defined in legislation and therefore the medical team considered themselves having to act as lawyers and interpret a supreme court judgement in making a medical decision.

can you post up the judgement of the x case that modifies interpretation of the offences against the person act 1861 please? the only modifications i can find are the uk ones to S58...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100



few things i'd like clarity on are, that since the ruling below, what have been the changes to law or to guidelines that make it possible for a woman to have a termination when her life was endangered? if there have been no changes, then it is still impossible for a woman, especially in such an emergency as this, to attain an abortion without having to go to court to seek it. the echr found it wasn't possible for C to have a termination without breaching article 8, but the victim in this case never even got the chance trade her article 8 rights to save her life given the emergency nature of her health situation. she was admitted on the saturday, so it would seem to be perfectly reasonable to say that there would be very little chance for her and her family of figuring the complex legal issues and frameworks needed to take it to court to get a termination in time to save her life.

the court ruling by echr was 2010, it's nearly 2 years ago. politicians making statements about doctors/hospitals need to have clarity on what to do in these situations and let's wait for the report and the findings of any investigations is a bit rich. they were told specifically what the broad issues were that they needed to legislate for and provide guidance on  on 16/12/2010. unless they can show that since the 16/12/2010 echr ruling that they have clarified what doctors and hospitals should do, either through new legislation or statutory guidance, they have just sat on it and did sfa. do they think we're idiots or something.


A,B,C v Ireland (application no: 25579/05) Grand Chamber 16/12/2010

Executive Summary                                                                                                                      In Irish law, abortion is prohibited under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Under Article 40.3.3 of the Irish Constitution the State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees to respect the mother in national laws. In the X case in 1992, the Supreme Court held that abortion was lawful in Ireland, if there was a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother. No legislation regulating that right was ever enacted, a fact regretted by the Supreme Court in its 1992 Judgment.

A and B travelled to the United Kingdom for abortions for reasons of health and/ or wellbeing. C who was in remission from cancer, argued before the Court that, although she believed her pregnancy put her life at risk, there was no procedure by which she could have established whether she qualified for a lawful abortion in Ireland on grounds of the risk to her life. She therefore travelled to the UK for an abortion. All three applicants claimed that the restriction on abortion in Ireland violated their right to respect for their private life under Article 8 of the ECHR.

With regard to the first and second applicants, A and B, the Court observed that the consensus  which existed among the majority of the members States of the Council of Europe allowing broader access to abortion than under Irish law was not sufficient to narrow the broad "margin of appreciation" which the State enjoyed on the issue of abortion.
Having regard to the constitutionally protected right to travel and the availability of appropriate pre- and post-abortion medical care in Ireland, as well as to the fact that the impugned prohibition in Ireland on abortion for health or well-being reasons was based on the moral values of the Irish people the Court concluded that, the existing prohibition on abortion in Ireland struck a fair balance between the right of A and B to respect for their private lives and the rights invoked on behalf of the unborn.
The Court thus found that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the ECHR by eleven votes to six.
With regard to C, the Court considered that the establishment of any risk to her life concerned essential aspects of her right to respect for her private life. The only non-judicial means existing in Ireland for determining such a risk, the ordinary medical consultation between a woman and her doctor, was deemed to be ineffective by the Court. The uncertainty surrounding such a process was influenced by the criminal provisions of the 1861 Act which put both doctors and women in fear of possible criminal prosecution. Recourse to the constitutional courts was also deemed ineffective, as the courts were not appropriate for the primary determination of whether a woman qualified for a lawful abortion. It was likewise inappropriate to ask women to pursue such complex constitutional proceedings when their right to have an abortion if pregnancy posed a threat to their life was not disputed. In any event, it was unclear how the courts were to enforce any mandatory order requiring doctors to carry out an abortion, given the lack of clear information from the Government to the Court as regards lawful abortions currently carried out in Ireland.
The Court concluded that existing procedures where ineffective to allow C to establish her right to a lawful abortion in Ireland given the risk to her life. Moreover, there was no explanation why the existing constitutional right had not been implemented to date despite recognition that further legal clarity was required. The Court thus concluded unanimously that Ireland had breached C's right under Article 8 given the State's failure to secure effective respect for her private life by reason of the absence of any implementing legislative or regulatory regime providing an accessible and effective procedure by which she could have established whether she qualified for a lawful abortion in Ireland.

it be a while before we know who is to blame, but like any workplace , doctors etc will cover their ass, so there is no come back if something goes wrong as in this case. Hide behind policy, law, procedures, etc. seen it in my workplace all the time, even when the right decision is obvious, more time than enough, no body will make the decision, afraid of the comeback from making the right/wrong decision, possible loss of job etc. When the woman requested the abortion if she was fearful of possible harm to her, she should have got one, commonsense. We don't live in a world where commonsense is the norm or things are all black and white. Religion and what people believe affects everyday life. Unfortunately here for all the wrong reasons.

It seems to me, without having substantial useful knowledge of the situation, that this is only marginally related to Catholicism.

It is mostly a case of medical negligence. But it is also a testament to the Irish irresponsibility in the affairs of government. where situations are routinely allowed to persist which are entirely contradictory. This has nothing to do with abortion per se, Irish people will criticise expenditure cutbacks while refusing to pay more taxes or establish government policies without any obvious way of carrying them out. While some people had reasoned objections to the recent Children's referendum, many others did bother voting, while others voted against because they were pissed off the government, or they were making some statement about Dublin being far from Donegal. With this kind of carryon in referendums government chickened out having one on the controversial subject of abortion.

Quote from: Rudi on November 15, 2012, 01:59:36 PM

Quote from: hmmm on November 15, 2012, 10:41:33 AM
Good article here from a leading OB/GYN:
http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/did-irish-catholic-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/

***

Good article, some of the comments to this particular article irk me, particularly the drivel wrote by Kelly Davis Jordan. " the religious, right wing, anti choice people are very vocal and obnoxoius, .." I really hate this sh"te talk, freedom of speech is ok for lefties provided you agree with their theories, ideas etc. I would be pro life in my thinking, in this case the life of the mother comes first, as the pregnancy, (as the facts are presented) did not seem viable. I thought this country was legally bound to carry out terminations in cases where the mothers life was at risk?

I am pro life for want of a better term but ffs when a child has no chance of survival then take care of the mother, this is shocking.

In this case.........if she was far enough long and got that news I would want the wife to live and although abortion is repugnant to me in cases like this common sense must prevail, in this case it didnt.

In the case were a woman is in mortal danger I feel strongly that she should choose what path to take, in cases of rape the same standard applies, that said women that simply get pregnant and decide to have one when the baby is fully formed are a disaster, I will never understand them.

As this woman died over a month ago, are these reports and investigations only happening now due to the shít storm her husband has had to raise in the media?

You can be guaranteed that these investigations are only happening because of the media storm over this!! Consider the fact that nothing will be done until these inquiries are over as well which will be in 3 or 4 months time and by then the  publicity will have died  down!!  If it turns out that she passed away as a result of a refusal to medically terminate her unviable pregnancy, then the pressure on the gov will increase rapidly and it  will split the gov down the middle seeing as Labour have committed to legislating for a pro-choice agenda!The image of this country world wide  will take a hammering for sure  and  it sure puts the "gathering" into perspective!

Quote from: johnneycool on November 16, 2012, 08:26:57 AM
As this woman died over a month ago, are these reports and investigations only happening now due to the shít storm her husband has had to raise in the media?

Possibly.  She died on 28th October and her husband took her body back to India.  He was possibly told the hospital would carry out an investigation into what happened.

Quote from: cadence on November 15, 2012, 05:30:00 PM

Quote from: Hardy on November 15, 2012, 11:20:38 AM

Quote from: deiseach on November 15, 2012, 11:12:44 AM

Quote from: Hardy on November 15, 2012, 11:11:49 AMBy the way, on reading her post, that Ob/Gyn's offering can be dismissed, as she ignores the most likely explanation in offering her "only three plausible explanations" for the outcome.

Which is?

It's close to her first explanation, but without the propagandist rhetoric.

The medical team had no law to follow, as the X case judgement modifies interpretation of the 19th century law, but this modified interpretation has not been defined in legislation and therefore the medical team considered themselves having to act as lawyers and interpret a supreme court judgement in making a medical decision.

can you post up the judgement of the x case that modifies interpretation of the offences against the person act 1861 please? the only modifications i can find are the uk ones to S58...

http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/(WebFiles)/5D058A7C2C1824738025765E003C5631/$FILE/McKinley%20v%20Min%20Defence_1992.rtf

I was basing my opinion on media reports and articles that state that this ruling effectively modifies the 1861 legislation, which apparently simply banned abortion without qualification, to state that "termination of pregnancy was permissible only when it was established as a matter of probability that there was a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother if such termination were not effected". Not that it matters in anything other than legal niceties, but this judgement was, it seems, not directly a re-interpretation of the 1861 act, as I stated, but an interpretation of the eighth amendment to the constitution which wrote the ban on abortion into the constitution.

By the way, I now understand there are Medical Council guidelines in this area and it appears there are fault lines within the medical profession based on whether you consider these guidelines adequate or you believe legislation is needed to provide protection for medical practitioners and mothers alike.

The following is anecdotal, but one gynaecologist I know of thinks (1) that there is no problem with the current guidelines (2) that he is in a large majority within the profession in this belief but (3) that there is a minority of medical people (some or all of whom are not necessarily gynaecologists, but more junior in the ob/gyn hierarchy) who disagree and some who take it upon themselves to police the situation on the basis of their own moral viewpoint, to the extent of warning others that they believe procedures about to be undertaken are in breach of the constitutional ban (as interpreted by the X judgement) and threatening to report such procedures to the authorities.

I have a difficulty in reconciling the two positions that (1) the adequacy of guidelines makes legislation unnecessary (2) the absence of legislation seems to create grey areas that allow some to dispute the decisions of the practitioners.

On the other hand, it may be that the introduction of legislation will not eliminate all grey areas and that there is more to the calls for legislation than a desire for legal clarity. A medic, introduced as "medical advisor to the Pro Life movement" was on Morning Ireland today and stated that doctors interpret the law daily in their medical decisions in all areas of medicine and ob/gyn is no different. While I would be wary of the views of a protagonist on any side of the political debate, that may make sense.

I don't know if this sheds light on the debate. I just offer it as a (second-hand) story from the wards, as it were. 

A piece on the "legal" situation in the North (which appears to be broadly similar to the South).  My emphasis in italics.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20353104

Savita death leads to call for clearer NI abortion law.

One of Northern Ireland's leading obstetricians has said the law on abortion could be given greater clarity if politicians were willing to act. Professor Jim Dornan was speaking after the death of Savita Halappanavar at University Hospital Galway.  Her family said she asked several times for her pregnancy to be terminated because she had severe back pain and was miscarrying.  Her husband said this was refused because there was a foetal heartbeat.  She died on 28 October.

News of her death led to a series of protests against Ireland's abortion laws. The Republic of Ireland has had strict laws on abortion for more than 100 years. The country's constitution has been amended to allow for an abortion when a woman's life is at risk - but the issue is very complex.

In Northern Ireland, medical staff operate in uncertain circumstances. There is no legislative law regarding abortion, only case law.

Despite the fact that between 30 and 40 medical terminations are carried out by the NHS in Northern Ireland every year, the exact circumstances in which is it is allowed remain vague. Doctors, nurses and midwives can opt out on the grounds of conscience. But medical staff who are willing to carry out abortions are often fearful of legal action. Revised official guidelines initially drafted in in 2010 have still not been completed and published. Prof Dornan, who sits on the Global Health Board of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said the current legislation on when a termination could be carried out in Northern Ireland was confusing.

"We would like to feel that our Department of Health and our paymasters - our political masters -and our legal masters are supportive of us," he told the BBC.  We need to have that guidance because we have been working on a guidance document that is sitting in an in-tray somewhere and we would love to see it coming out. I appreciate there are problems, but let's address those problems and get it sorted out."

Meanwhile, the Health Service Executive (HSE) in the Republic is expected to announce details later of its planned inquiry into Mrs Halapanavar's death.  Mrs Halappanavar, 31, was a dentist and was originally from India.  The terms of reference and the membership of the inquiry team are due to be finalised later. The team will include an independent expert in obstetrics and gynaecology.  The Irish minister for health James Reilly said the inquiry would be thorough but he also wanted it to take place quickly.  About 2,000 people gathered outside the Dáil, the lower chamber of the parliament, in Dublin on Wednesday evening calling for the reform of the Republic's abortion laws.  Speaking in the Dail on Thursday, Tanaiste (Deputy Prime Minister) Eamon Gilmore said it was time to bring "legal clarity" to the issue of abortion.   Mr Gilmore said the Irish government "is going to deal with this issue".

I am dreading what is coming on this. There are so many crazies out there talking complete rubbish on this issue.

My standpoint and I think that of the vast majority is the terminations should be allowed when the life of the mother is at risk.

It's a tough issue and I wonder if a "one size fits all" legal solution is available. The best we can hope for is to get to a legal situation where we the medical profession make the calls and do their job ethically and professionally. If they are found to provide a termination in circumstances where the threat to the life of the mother is found to be minimal or non-existant then they face the rigours of the law. Let some of the anti-abortion groups have representation on a statutory body that investigates cases to keep them happy that there's no cover ups.

What happened with that Indian lady is a scandal and reflects terribly on our country. God help her and her husband and family. We are a disgrace but with the so-called leadership we've had to endure in this country for decades it's no surprise unfortunately.

I know a few doctors and have asked them about the situation. Basically they have said that the Media Circus around this hasn't helped and people are just jumping on the issue to serve their own agenda's.

1. Full details of the exact situation have not been released as you can't release any medical information about the patient until the inquiry has been completed.

2. While there is a foetal heartbeat all is not lost and there can be no degree of certainty that the patient would have miscarried.

3. There has been no clarification on when the patient started showing signs of septicemia and when treatment was administered.

Basically what I'm saying is we need the facts of the case before jumping to conclusions. Aside from that there is no doubt that the need for legal clarification around medical abortion should be sorted sooner rather than later!!!

Quote from: Hardy on November 16, 2012, 10:31:47 AM

Quote from: cadence on November 15, 2012, 05:30:00 PM

Quote from: Hardy on November 15, 2012, 11:20:38 AM

Quote from: deiseach on November 15, 2012, 11:12:44 AM

Quote from: Hardy on November 15, 2012, 11:11:49 AMBy the way, on reading her post, that Ob/Gyn's offering can be dismissed, as she ignores the most likely explanation in offering her "only three plausible explanations" for the outcome.

Which is?

It's close to her first explanation, but without the propagandist rhetoric.

The medical team had no law to follow, as the X case judgement modifies interpretation of the 19th century law, but this modified interpretation has not been defined in legislation and therefore the medical team considered themselves having to act as lawyers and interpret a supreme court judgement in making a medical decision.

can you post up the judgement of the x case that modifies interpretation of the offences against the person act 1861 please? the only modifications i can find are the uk ones to S58...

http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/(WebFiles)/5D058A7C2C1824738025765E003C5631/$FILE/McKinley%20v%20Min%20Defence_1992.rtf

I was basing my opinion on media reports and articles that state that this ruling effectively modifies the 1861 legislation, which apparently simply banned abortion without qualification, to state that "termination of pregnancy was permissible only when it was established as a matter of probability that there was a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother if such termination were not effected". Not that it matters in anything other than legal niceties, but this judgement was, it seems, not directly a re-interpretation of the 1861 act, as I stated, but an interpretation of the eighth amendment to the constitution which wrote the ban on abortion into the constitution.

By the way, I now understand there are Medical Council guidelines in this area and it appears there are fault lines within the medical profession based on whether you consider these guidelines adequate or you believe legislation is needed to provide protection for medical practitioners and mothers alike.

The following is anecdotal, but one gynaecologist I know of thinks (1) that there is no problem with the current guidelines (2) that he is in a large majority within the profession in this belief but (3) that there is a minority of medical people (some or all of whom are not necessarily gynaecologists, but more junior in the ob/gyn hierarchy) who disagree and some who take it upon themselves to police the situation on the basis of their own moral viewpoint, to the extent of warning others that they believe procedures about to be undertaken are in breach of the constitutional ban (as interpreted by the X judgement) and threatening to report such procedures to the authorities.

I have a difficulty in reconciling the two positions that (1) the adequacy of guidelines makes legislation unnecessary (2) the absence of legislation seems to create grey areas that allow some to dispute the decisions of the practitioners.

On the other hand, it may be that the introduction of legislation will not eliminate all grey areas and that there is more to the calls for legislation than a desire for legal clarity. A medic, introduced as "medical advisor to the Pro Life movement" was on Morning Ireland today and stated that doctors interpret the law daily in their medical decisions in all areas of medicine and ob/gyn is no different. While I would be wary of the views of a protagonist on any side of the political debate, that may make sense.

I don't know if this sheds light on the debate. I just offer it as a (second-hand) story from the wards, as it were.

cheers, i didn't know that it was written into the constitution and those andecdotal discussions do shed some light onto the grey areas of statute... health and social care professionals interpret and apply the law within those grey areas. they also just as importantly apply the ethics of the professions they've signed up to daily. but if the law is silent on a particualr area, those professionals have to reach an interpretation within the spirit of that legislation. and since i've mentioned them, i'm not so sure that those concerned followed the ethics/codes of practice of the profession that they've signed up to either. their first consideration seems to have been protecting themselves from prosecution, not the life of their patient.

i have sympathy for the medical staff, terrible situation to be in. can't see new legislation making it any clearer myself whilst terminations are allowed only in very exceptional circumstances. those exceptional circumstances will always be a battleground fought on by anti and pro camps. + some medics will do the right thing as they see it and others will make a political decision and back off to live to fight another day as they say.





   

Regardless of the facts of this particular case, the status quo can't remain. There has to some progress - politicians can't keep kicking this one down the road. There is an agenda here that has to be pushed.

If a new referendum which clearly outlined what was and was was not permissable was proposed, I think it would pass.  Would these changes then be written into Law?

Something the ULA (political suicide for the main parties) should be pushing.

What most of you are missing is that the Supreme Court has already given a definitive ruling, not a complete ruling, but more than enough to allow the doctors to do their job in this case.
From Justice Finlay @ Supreme Court
"if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health of the mother, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible"

The doctors only need to establish a 'probability' of a real and substantial risk to the life before abortion is permissable.
The doctors do not need to have 100% certainty, a diagnosis of a 'probability' is enough.

In this case, they could have ignored evaluating the level of risk because of the (99.9%) probability of the unborn child not surviving.
A diagnosis of a 'probability' is enough for the Supreme Court.

Probability, though, is a mathematical concept. The range of probability extends from zero (impossible) to 1 (inevitable). So the phrase "established as a matter of probability" has no logical meaning of itself without a definition of the level of probability meant. Likewise, with the definition of "substantial". The definitions in law of terms like these are usually established by case law. But, in this instance, case law will only arise as a result of at least one, if not a series of trials where the action of a doctor in performing an abortion is disputed and I don't think anyone wants that.

On the one hand, I take the point that the majority of practitioners seem comfortable with the situation as it stands, with what they consider to be adequate guidelines. On the other hand, the Halappanavar case shows that these guidelines don't work in all cases (whether that's because of genuine difficulty of interpretation or bloody-minded ideologically-inspired mischief-making). Then again, I can't think of any law or set of guidelines that covers 100% of potential eventualities - otherwise there'd be no need for lawyers and courts. So any interpretation provided by legislation is unlikely to be case-proof anyway.

Nobody, other than the extreme loopers on either side has any difficulty with the moral choices when they are clear cut. But, like most reasonable people, I struggle with the choices at the boundaries, where matters do not so easily fall into well-defined categories. I do envy the certainty of those who can pronounce with assurance on the moral issues in these grey areas.

Quote from: Hardy on November 20, 2012, 10:38:42 AM
Probability, though, is a mathematical concept. The range of probability extends from zero (impossible) to 1 (inevitable). So the phrase "established as a matter of probability" has no logical meaning of itself without a definition of the level of probability meant. Likewise, with the definition of "substantial". The definitions in law of terms like these are usually established by case law. But, in this instance, case law will only arise as a result of at least one, if not a series of trials where the action of a doctor in performing an abortion is disputed and I don't think anyone wants that.

The Supreme Court has already accepted that probability in this sensitive sphere, is  proven/defined by medical diagnosis of probability.

QuoteNobody, other than the extreme loopers on either side has any difficulty with the moral choices when they are clear cut. But, like most reasonable people, I struggle with the choices at the boundaries, where matters do not so easily fall into well-defined categories. I do envy the certainty of those who can pronounce with assurance on the moral issues in these grey areas.

+1

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20768743 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20768743)

The Irish government has announced it will legislate for abortion in circumstances where the mother's life is at risk.

another  abortion dilemma . Pro life vs the real world. 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/dec/18/irish-doctors-legal-advice-brain-dead-pregnant-woman

Ireland's highly restrictive abortion laws have come under renewed focus after it emerged that doctors in an Irish hospital are seeking legal advice over whether they can switch off the life support machine of a brain-dead woman who is 16 weeks pregnant.
The family of the woman want the medical team there to allow her to die. The woman, who is understood to be in her mid to late twenties, suffered head trauma and a clot to the brain.
But even though there is no chance of revival, doctors at the hospital are reluctant to carry out her family's wishes because she is 16 weeks pregnant. Under the 8th amendment to the Irish Republic's constitution the foetus inside her is as much an Irish citizen as the clinically dead mother.

What a mess.
Bringing abortion into the constitution was ridiculous.

This case appears to be more straightforward legally.

If the above is correct, then the mother's life isn't at risk, sadly.

This is really tough for the family, and the inevitable media attention (along with the horrible prospect of the two extreme groups getting involved) will make it horrible for them. But with the mother gone, surely the medics have to fight for the infant?

You'd like to believe if the mother was still alive she'd be fighting tooth and nail for the child. You wouldn't think it from the press coverage so far.

Quote from: Declan on November 20, 2012, 11:10:34 AM

QuoteNobody, other than the extreme loopers on either side has any difficulty with the moral choices when they are clear cut. But, like most reasonable people, I struggle with the choices at the boundaries, where matters do not so easily fall into well-defined categories. I do envy the certainty of those who can pronounce with assurance on the moral issues in these grey areas.

+1

Well said. The world is grey. It always has been and it always will be.

Quote from: muppet on December 18, 2014, 09:36:27 PM
This case appears to be more straightforward legally.

If the above is correct, then the mother's life isn't at risk, sadly.

This is really tough for the family, and the inevitable media attention (along with the horrible prospect of the two extreme groups getting involved) will make it horrible for them. But with the mother gone, surely the medics have to fight for the infant?

this is a terribly tragic case and its grotesque that this families suffering has to be played out in public. whatever your feelings on abortion i think at this stage its fair to say  that the 8th amendment is proving its self to be a bit of a disaster. it has sparked 30 years of hard cases going to court and  referendum after referendum not to mention the appalling state of affairs where babies who cannot live outside the womb have to be brought to term.

all  the while we have more or less the same abortion rate as every other European country only we have ours in England.

in relation to the quote from Muppet above, there was an interesting discussion on primtime last night  regarding similar cases in the US. the problem with  equal right to life argument is that the mother is dead, how can you have an equal right to life with a corpse?

Quote from: guy crouchback on December 19, 2014, 09:08:01 AM

Quote from: muppet on December 18, 2014, 09:36:27 PM
This case appears to be more straightforward legally.

If the above is correct, then the mother's life isn't at risk, sadly.

This is really tough for the family, and the inevitable media attention (along with the horrible prospect of the two extreme groups getting involved) will make it horrible for them. But with the mother gone, surely the medics have to fight for the infant?

this is a terribly tragic case and its grotesque that this families suffering has to be played out in public. whatever your feelings on abortion i think at this stage its fair to say  that the 8th amendment is proving its self to be a bit of a disaster. it has sparked 30 years of hard cases going to court and  referendum after referendum not to mention the appalling state of affairs where babies who cannot live outside the womb have to be brought to term.

all  the while we have more or less the same abortion rate as every other European country only we have ours in England.

in relation to the quote from Muppet above, there was an interesting discussion on primtime last night  regarding similar cases in the US. the problem with  equal right to life argument is that the mother is dead, how can you have an equal right to life with a corpse?

Can you explain please? I see one entity with a right to life not in conflict with any equal right. But I missed the show so didn't hear the argument.

I'm not really in a position to explain it as it was quite technical and they were 2 contrasting cases used, but the crux of it was that a judge in Texas ( i think) ruled  that brain death equalled death, therefore the law as it stood ( no doubt different to ours)  was not applicable, as would itt be when dealing with a living person.

William binchy the pro life lawyer was on with Miriam after this discussion and while he did not explicitly state it, i got the impression that he expects a similar outcome in the high court here, he was at pains to state that this was not a case about abortion or termination or even the 8th amendment, although i thought he was having difficult explaining what exactly it was about then.

Susan mc kay was opposing him with the argument that it was very much about the 8th and i though she got the better of it, although binchy was more convincing  then he usually is.

Quote from: guy crouchback on December 19, 2014, 10:35:08 AM
I'm not really in a position to explain it as it was quite technical and they were 2 contrasting cases used, but the crux of it was that a judge in Texas ( i think) ruled  that brain death equalled death, therefore the law as it stood ( no doubt different to ours)  was not applicable, as would itt be when dealing with a living person.

William binchy the pro life lawyer was on with Miriam after this discussion and while he did not explicitly state it, i got the impression that he expects a similar outcome in the high court here, he was at pains to state that this was not a case about abortion or termination or even the 8th amendment, although i thought he was having difficult explaining what exactly it was about then.

Susan mc kay was opposing him with the argument that it was very much about the 8th and i though she got the better of it, although binchy was more convincing  then he usually is.

Is there a definition under Irish Law for when life begins? As in if the pregnancy is less than or more than so many weeks gone?

Other than some technical reason like that, I personally can't see the right of a deceased individual trumping the right to live.

Quote from: muppet on December 19, 2014, 10:58:33 AM

Quote from: guy crouchback on December 19, 2014, 10:35:08 AM
I'm not really in a position to explain it as it was quite technical and they were 2 contrasting cases used, but the crux of it was that a judge in Texas ( i think) ruled  that brain death equalled death, therefore the law as it stood ( no doubt different to ours)  was not applicable, as would itt be when dealing with a living person.

William binchy the pro life lawyer was on with Miriam after this discussion and while he did not explicitly state it, i got the impression that he expects a similar outcome in the high court here, he was at pains to state that this was not a case about abortion or termination or even the 8th amendment, although i thought he was having difficult explaining what exactly it was about then.

Susan mc kay was opposing him with the argument that it was very much about the 8th and i though she got the better of it, although binchy was more convincing  then he usually is.

Is there a definition under Irish Law for when life begins? As in if the pregnancy is less than or more than so many weeks gone?

Other than some technical reason like that, I personally can't see the right of a deceased individual trumping the right to live.

The Constitution is not the place for this issue.
The law as framed can't handle situations like this.
And when foreign women need an abortion in Ireland it's just as bad. 

Quote from: muppet on December 19, 2014, 10:58:33 AM

Quote from: guy crouchback on December 19, 2014, 10:35:08 AM
I'm not really in a position to explain it as it was quite technical and they were 2 contrasting cases used, but the crux of it was that a judge in Texas ( i think) ruled  that brain death equalled death, therefore the law as it stood ( no doubt different to ours)  was not applicable, as would it be when dealing with a living person.

William binchy the pro life lawyer was on with Miriam after this discussion and while he did not explicitly state it, i got the impression that he expects a similar outcome in the high court here, he was at pains to state that this was not a case about abortion or termination or even the 8th amendment, although i thought he was having difficult explaining what exactly it was about then.

Susan mc kay was opposing him with the argument that it was very much about the 8th and i though she got the better of it, although binchy was more convincing  then he usually is.

Is there a definition under Irish Law for when life begins? As in if the pregnancy is less than or more than so many weeks gone?

Other than some technical reason like that, I personally can't see the right of a deceased individual trumping the right to live.

just thinking out loud here but could it be that the law states that  the baby (foetus) has an equal right to life to its mothers right, as opposed to both of them having an ''equal right to life'' in general.  if its an equal right to life as its mothers ( the mother) right then the mother being deceased causes a major problem.
if its an equal right to A life , as its mother and everyone else had/has, then i think the point your making stands.

I'm not sure if what i have just written makes much sense.

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

My reading of that is that the state acknowledges the right to life of the unborn but that does not trump the right to life of the mother.  As the mother in this case is sadly no longer with us then the right to life of the child is the only consideration.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1219/667944-eighth-amendment/

Joan Burton said difficult situations arise and the people she would want to see around the bed were the doctors, not the lawyers.

Quote from: guy crouchback on December 19, 2014, 12:25:45 PM

Quote from: muppet on December 19, 2014, 10:58:33 AM

Quote from: guy crouchback on December 19, 2014, 10:35:08 AM
I'm not really in a position to explain it as it was quite technical and they were 2 contrasting cases used, but the crux of it was that a judge in Texas ( i think) ruled  that brain death equalled death, therefore the law as it stood ( no doubt different to ours)  was not applicable, as would it be when dealing with a living person.

William binchy the pro life lawyer was on with Miriam after this discussion and while he did not explicitly state it, i got the impression that he expects a similar outcome in the high court here, he was at pains to state that this was not a case about abortion or termination or even the 8th amendment, although i thought he was having difficult explaining what exactly it was about then.

Susan mc kay was opposing him with the argument that it was very much about the 8th and i though she got the better of it, although binchy was more convincing  then he usually is.

Is there a definition under Irish Law for when life begins? As in if the pregnancy is less than or more than so many weeks gone?

Other than some technical reason like that, I personally can't see the right of a deceased individual trumping the right to live.

just thinking out loud here but could it be that the law states that  the baby (foetus) has an equal right to life to its mothers right, as opposed to both of them having an ''equal right to life'' in general.  if its an equal right to life as its mothers ( the mother) right then the mother being deceased causes a major problem.
if its an equal right to A life , as its mother and everyone else had/has, then i think the point your making stands.

I'm not sure if what i have just written makes much sense.

It makes sense alright. I really hope it doesn't go down that road.

the notion of keeping the body of a dead woman artificially alive to act as a human incubator for the next 3 and half months at least against the wishes of her family is extraordinary.
its tragic that this poor young woman should suffer such a terrible fate  but in my opinion her foetus should be allowed to pass away with her, if that's what her family want. even if its not what what her family want I'm not sure  the alternative  strikes me as very ethical.

I keep hearing people mention her family. Can anyone tell me is this her husband and father of the unborn child or is it the girls parents/brothers/sisters?
I'm just interested as I find it odd the father of the child hasn't been mentioned.
God forbid if I was in this position but if the doctors told me that my unborn child could be saved then I would want them to do everything they could to save him. If that meant keeping my wife on a life support machine then so be it.
I haven't asked my wife her opinion yet but I'm pretty sure she would want to do the same thing.

Quote from: guy crouchback on December 19, 2014, 04:40:02 PM
the notion of keeping the body of a dead woman artificially alive to act as a human incubator for the next 3 and half months at least against the wishes of her family is extraordinary.
its tragic that this poor young woman should suffer such a terrible fate  but in my opinion her foetus should be allowed to pass away with her, if that's what her family want. even if its not what what her family want I'm not sure  the alternative  strikes me as very ethical.

The child should have a chance to live. If the family don't want it there are plenty who would love the chance to raise him/her.
I can think of no reason why you would stop something good happening from a tragic situation.

Quote from: Ulick on December 18, 2014, 11:43:17 PM
You'd like to believe if the mother was still alive she'd be fighting tooth and nail for the child. You wouldn't think it from the press coverage so far.

If the mother was still alive the situation wouldn't exist.

Quote from: laoislad on December 19, 2014, 04:50:15 PM
I keep hearing people mention her family. Can anyone tell me is this her husband and father of the unborn child or is it the girls parents/brothers/sisters?
I'm just interested as I find it odd the father of the child hasn't been mentioned.
God forbid if I was in this position but if the doctors told me that my unborn child could be saved then I would want them to do everything they could to save him. If that meant keeping my wife on a life support machine then so be it.
I haven't asked my wife her opinion yet but I'm pretty sure she would want to do the same thing.

Agreed.
I can't help but feel the media stories about the family wanting to end the life of the mother are unsubstantiated and driven by a media that wants a liberal abortion regime. Even if this is not the case, i nonetheless find it very disturbing the the #repealthe8th fanatics are hi-jacking this tragic story to push their agenda.
And their agenda is to ultimately remove constitutional protection for the unborn thus effectively bringing in abortion on demand.... a horrendous proposition for me.
Let this case play out and keep the abortion debate/discussion completely seperate.

Quote from: blast05 on December 19, 2014, 11:18:00 PM

Quote from: laoislad on December 19, 2014, 04:50:15 PM
I keep hearing people mention her family. Can anyone tell me is this her husband and father of the unborn child or is it the girls parents/brothers/sisters?
I'm just interested as I find it odd the father of the child hasn't been mentioned.
God forbid if I was in this position but if the doctors told me that my unborn child could be saved then I would want them to do everything they could to save him. If that meant keeping my wife on a life support machine then so be it.
I haven't asked my wife her opinion yet but I'm pretty sure she would want to do the same thing.

Agreed.
I can't help but feel the media stories about the family wanting to end the life of the mother are unsubstantiated and driven by a media that wants a liberal abortion regime. Even if this is not the case, i nonetheless find it very disturbing the the #repealthe8th fanatics are hi-jacking this tragic story to push their agenda.
And their agenda is to ultimately remove constitutional protection for the unborn thus effectively bringing in abortion on demand.... a horrendous proposition for me.
Let this case play out and keep the abortion debate/discussion completely seperate.

I agree with Laoislad. Its hard to imagine that any woman would want her child to die with her either. I don't understand what the family are looking for unless there is some other complication that is not in the public domain

Quote from: Itchy on December 19, 2014, 11:59:47 PM

Quote from: blast05 on December 19, 2014, 11:18:00 PM

Quote from: laoislad on December 19, 2014, 04:50:15 PM
I keep hearing people mention her family. Can anyone tell me is this her husband and father of the unborn child or is it the girls parents/brothers/sisters?
I'm just interested as I find it odd the father of the child hasn't been mentioned.
God forbid if I was in this position but if the doctors told me that my unborn child could be saved then I would want them to do everything they could to save him. If that meant keeping my wife on a life support machine then so be it.
I haven't asked my wife her opinion yet but I'm pretty sure she would want to do the same thing.

Agreed.
I can't help but feel the media stories about the family wanting to end the life of the mother are unsubstantiated and driven by a media that wants a liberal abortion regime. Even if this is not the case, i nonetheless find it very disturbing the the #repealthe8th fanatics are hi-jacking this tragic story to push their agenda.
And their agenda is to ultimately remove constitutional protection for the unborn thus effectively bringing in abortion on demand.... a horrendous proposition for me.
Let this case play out and keep the abortion debate/discussion completely seperate.

I agree with Laoislad. Its hard to imagine that any woman would want her child to die with her either. I don't understand what the family are looking for unless there is some other complication that is not in the public domain

It sounds like there's something more to the story alright in terms of the family situation, hard to know what though.

It's impossible to legislate for something like this so the wording of the 8th ammendment seems irrelevant to me

Quote from: blast05 on December 19, 2014, 11:18:00 PM

Quote from: laoislad on December 19, 2014, 04:50:15 PM
I keep hearing people mention her family. Can anyone tell me is this her husband and father of the unborn child or is it the girls parents/brothers/sisters?
I'm just interested as I find it odd the father of the child hasn't been mentioned.
God forbid if I was in this position but if the doctors told me that my unborn child could be saved then I would want them to do everything they could to save him. If that meant keeping my wife on a life support machine then so be it.
I haven't asked my wife her opinion yet but I'm pretty sure she would want to do the same thing.

Agreed.
I can't help but feel the media stories about the family wanting to end the life of the mother are unsubstantiated and driven by a media that wants a liberal abortion regime. Even if this is not the case, i nonetheless find it very disturbing the the #repealthe8th fanatics are hi-jacking this tragic story to push their agenda.
And their agenda is to ultimately remove constitutional protection for the unborn thus effectively bringing in abortion on demand.... a horrendous proposition for me.
Let this case play out and keep the abortion debate/discussion completely seperate.

It's only in the news because the family want to turn off the life support. Best to know the basics of the story before commenting on it.

The baby's father wants to let the baby die as well?

We are bombarded constantly to have a donor card so that our organs could save another life, yet so many want to quit on this baby. i just cant for the life of me wonder why the family would not want to save the life of the baby. That said i do not know the personal circumstances but after discussing this with my wife, much like throwing myself in front of a bullet for my kids i would happily be kept alive for the sake of them surviving.

Quote from: Maguire01 on December 20, 2014, 01:30:21 AM

Quote from: blast05 on December 19, 2014, 11:18:00 PM

Quote from: laoislad on December 19, 2014, 04:50:15 PM
I keep hearing people mention her family. Can anyone tell me is this her husband and father of the unborn child or is it the girls parents/brothers/sisters?
I'm just interested as I find it odd the father of the child hasn't been mentioned.
God forbid if I was in this position but if the doctors told me that my unborn child could be saved then I would want them to do everything they could to save him. If that meant keeping my wife on a life support machine then so be it.
I haven't asked my wife her opinion yet but I'm pretty sure she would want to do the same thing.

Agreed.
I can't help but feel the media stories about the family wanting to end the life of the mother are unsubstantiated and driven by a media that wants a liberal abortion regime. Even if this is not the case, i nonetheless find it very disturbing the the #repealthe8th fanatics are hi-jacking this tragic story to push their agenda.
And their agenda is to ultimately remove constitutional protection for the unborn thus effectively bringing in abortion on demand.... a horrendous proposition for me.
Let this case play out and keep the abortion debate/discussion completely seperate.

It's only in the news because the family want to turn off the life support. Best to know the basics of the story before commenting on it.

Do you think anyone on here knows the basics of the story? It all sounds very strange to me that a family would not keep the mother on life support until the child is delivered. There has to be another angle to it. What is depressing is the immediate taking of sides the pro life v the pro abortion, both assume they know whats happening and take up their positions on a case they can know f**k all about.

There is a shocking article in the Irish Times about the case today. The woman is brain dead and she is being kept going mechanically. It sounds grotesque. Has this ever happened before anywhere, even in a catholic country?

Quote from: seafoid on December 24, 2014, 03:19:53 PM
There is a shocking article in the Irish Times about the case today. The woman is brain dead and she is being kept going mechanically. It sounds grotesque. Has this ever happened before anywhere, even in a catholic country?

I read said article today and found it very sobering and disturbing....

As someone else said further up the page its sad the entrenched views people have on the topic. I was in the doctors surgery Monday morning when the story came on the radio,  a woman who 2 minutes hadn't heard the story was suddenly a world authority on the subject and was running down "that abortion crowd", she even referenced Michael Schumacher as a reason this woman had to be kept alive.

Sad all round

Quote from: Boycey on December 24, 2014, 04:59:10 PM

Quote from: seafoid on December 24, 2014, 03:19:53 PM
There is a shocking article in the Irish Times about the case today. The woman is brain dead and she is being kept going mechanically. It sounds grotesque. Has this ever happened before anywhere, even in a catholic country?

I read said article today and found it very sobering and disturbing....

As someone else said further up the page its sad the entrenched views people have on the topic. I was in the doctors surgery Monday morning when the story came on the radio,  a woman who 2 minutes hadn't heard the story was suddenly a world authority on the subject and was running down "that abortion crowd", she even referenced Michael Schumacher as a reason this woman had to be kept alive.

Sad all round

That was me. I was referring mostly to the usual suspects on twitter jumping in without having a clue what the circumstances were and the same is probably true for many on this board. I am personally in the middle on this abortion debate, I think it is impossible to legislate for every scenario

Quote from: AZOffaly on December 20, 2014, 02:08:43 PM
The baby's father wants to let the baby die as well?

The medical advice seems to be that there is little chance of the baby surviving. If the family have accepted that, then I can see why they would wan't to move on from the awful scenario they find themselves in.

However, for me, if there was a chance that the baby could make it, I would probably see it differently.

Quote from: mylestheslasher on December 21, 2014, 12:48:56 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on December 20, 2014, 01:30:21 AM

Quote from: blast05 on December 19, 2014, 11:18:00 PM

Quote from: laoislad on December 19, 2014, 04:50:15 PM
I keep hearing people mention her family. Can anyone tell me is this her husband and father of the unborn child or is it the girls parents/brothers/sisters?
I'm just interested as I find it odd the father of the child hasn't been mentioned.
God forbid if I was in this position but if the doctors told me that my unborn child could be saved then I would want them to do everything they could to save him. If that meant keeping my wife on a life support machine then so be it.
I haven't asked my wife her opinion yet but I'm pretty sure she would want to do the same thing.

Agreed.
I can't help but feel the media stories about the family wanting to end the life of the mother are unsubstantiated and driven by a media that wants a liberal abortion regime. Even if this is not the case, i nonetheless find it very disturbing the the #repealthe8th fanatics are hi-jacking this tragic story to push their agenda.
And their agenda is to ultimately remove constitutional protection for the unborn thus effectively bringing in abortion on demand.... a horrendous proposition for me.
Let this case play out and keep the abortion debate/discussion completely seperate.

It's only in the news because the family want to turn off the life support. Best to know the basics of the story before commenting on it.

Do you think anyone on here knows the basics of the story? It all sounds very strange to me that a family would not keep the mother on life support until the child is delivered. There has to be another angle to it. What is depressing is the immediate taking of sides the pro life v the pro abortion, both assume they know whats happening and take up their positions on a case they can know f**k all about.

No one knows all the facts, but I was responding to someone who had missed some of the basics that had been made public.

As per the Irish Times today:

"She was pronounced clinically dead on December 3rd last, her condition is deteriorating and she displays puffiness of the torso, an open head wound, rotting brain, and also has several infections. A number of medical experts have said the prospect of the foetus surviving intact is small even if treatment continues."

If that was someone in my family, I'd want to take them off life support.

Quote from: AZOffaly on December 20, 2014, 02:08:43 PM
The baby's father wants to let the baby die as well?

It would appear so - http://www.thejournal.ie/woman-court-unborn-1849766-Dec2014/
The medical experts seem to be saying there's little chance the baby could be born alive.
It's a tragic situation - the family going through legal proceedings on Christmas Eve and St Stephen's Day, on top of the grief of losing their daughter / partner, it's a very sad case.

An embarrassing contribution from McDonnell on this one... particularly the bit in bold, which is just wrong.

Abortion: SDLP opposes changes to Northern Ireland law

The SDLP is to oppose changing the law to allow abortion in cases where women have been raped or are carrying a foetus with a lethal abnormality.

Northern Ireland's department of justice (DoJ) recently consulted the public on proposals to change the law.

The DoJ recommended allowing abortion in lethal abnormality cases but did not make recommendations for rape cases.

However, SDLP leader Alasdair McDonnell said he is not persuaded of the need to change the abortion law in either case.

The south Belfast GP was speaking on BBC Radio Ulster's Inside Politics programme.

Lethal foetal abnormality is where a baby in the womb has a condition which means it will die while either in the womb or shortly after birth.

Dr McDonnell said: "The SDLP is unequivocally opposed to abortion, even in those particular circumstances because basically, the predictions in those circumstances are never accurate," he said.

"Nobody can predict that a foetus is not viable, and that's the problem, and as a GP, I'm fully aware.

"I have seen situations where termination or an abortion was recommended to somebody because a foetus that had this, that or the other thing, and that foetus grew up to be a perfectly normal child."

Northern Ireland's abortion law differs from the rest of the UK.

Currently, a termination is only legal in Northern Ireland if a woman's life is at risk or if there is a risk of permanent and serious damage to her mental or physical health.

Proposals to change the law have been brought forward following publicity surrounding the case of Sarah Ewart.

She told the media of her traumatic experience of travelling to England for the termination of a baby who doctors believed would not survive outside the womb.



He also came out with: "So I mean, basically, who am I to decide if somebody should live or not?"
Indeed, it shouldn't be your decision, but you're the one denying women the choice.

Apart from Alliance, the political parties seem to be out of step with wider public opinion, in NI even more so that in the 26 counties. It's all the more illogical given that women travel to GB every day, so it's not a case of 'you can't have it', just a case of 'not here'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35546399

Delay tactics from DUP and outright denial from SDLP on amending abortion legislation in NI in the case of 'fatal foetal abnormality'. The Assembly voted against this as well as amendment for cases of rape or incest. Are these people thick? It's not like people in NI can't go to Britain to get this done, why not just let them have it done here and save them more trauma of having go on a plane to England!  ::)

The SDLP prove again they are not fit for purpose, they will do anything to oppose reform.  Things like this depress me - politicians elected on a green or orange vote deciding what is right for vulnerable women.

Quote from: general_lee on February 11, 2016, 11:45:35 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-35546399

Delay tactics from DUP and outright denial from SDLP on amending abortion legislation in NI in the case of 'fatal foetal abnormality'. The Assembly voted against this as well as amendment for cases of rape or incest. Are these people thick? It's not like people in NI can't go to Britain to get this done, why not just let them have it done here and save them more trauma of having go on a plane to England!  ::)

Out of sight, out of mind I'm afraid.

The SDLP are a disaster on this. It may well come back to bite them in places like South Belfast. Eastwood had an opportunity to refresh the party after McDonnell and the least he could have done is given a free vote. I know a lot of younger people will be massively put off by this. I am.

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 08:11:43 PM
The SDLP are a disaster on this. It may well come back to bite them in places like South Belfast. Eastwood had an opportunity to refresh the party after McDonnell and the least he could have done is given a free vote. I know a lot of younger people will be massively put off by this. I am.

Are South Belfast people especially keen on ending inconvenient lives?

Quote from: armaghniac on February 11, 2016, 09:16:54 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 08:11:43 PM
The SDLP are a disaster on this. It may well come back to bite them in places like South Belfast. Eastwood had an opportunity to refresh the party after McDonnell and the least he could have done is given a free vote. I know a lot of younger people will be massively put off by this. I am.

Are South Belfast people especially keen on ending inconvenient lives?

South Belfast would have a young, liberal mass of voters, moreso than many constituencies, who the SDLP, along with others, will be trying to attract. Many of these voters will think that the woman is best placed to make difficult decisions and won't be attracted by those who deny them this choice.

Quote from: No wides on February 11, 2016, 11:57:39 AM
The SDLP prove again they are not fit for purpose, they will do anything to oppose reform.  Things like this depress me - politicians elected on a green or orange vote deciding what is right for vulnerable women.

You could get a job as a politician yourself with your sweeping statements.

the majority of people in the occupied 6 are against abortion.

Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2016, 09:39:16 PM

Quote from: No wides on February 11, 2016, 11:57:39 AM
The SDLP prove again they are not fit for purpose, they will do anything to oppose reform.  Things like this depress me - politicians elected on a green or orange vote deciding what is right for vulnerable women.

You could get a job as a politician yourself with your sweeping statements.

the majority of people in the occupied 6 are against abortion.

Well that's surely another sweeping statement?

The truth is, we don't actually know the opinion of the majority, either to abortion in general, or to the much more narrow circumstances being voted on here. You might be surprised.

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 09:39:03 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on February 11, 2016, 09:16:54 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 08:11:43 PM
The SDLP are a disaster on this. It may well come back to bite them in places like South Belfast. Eastwood had an opportunity to refresh the party after McDonnell and the least he could have done is given a free vote. I know a lot of younger people will be massively put off by this. I am.

Are South Belfast people especially keen on ending inconvenient lives?

South Belfast would have a young, liberal mass of voters, moreso than many constituencies, who the SDLP, along with others, will be trying to attract. Many of these voters will think that the woman is best placed to make difficult decisions and won't be attracted by those who deny them this choice.

I understand people being pro-life and fighting for it. Life is life and in my book it is a cause worth fighting for regardless of religious affiliation, sexual persuasion, gender....

what i dont get is why someone like you maguire would you strongly fight for abortion? what you gain?
I protect life with my efforts? what do you get?

Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2016, 09:49:57 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 09:39:03 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on February 11, 2016, 09:16:54 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 08:11:43 PM
The SDLP are a disaster on this. It may well come back to bite them in places like South Belfast. Eastwood had an opportunity to refresh the party after McDonnell and the least he could have done is given a free vote. I know a lot of younger people will be massively put off by this. I am.

Are South Belfast people especially keen on ending inconvenient lives?

South Belfast would have a young, liberal mass of voters, moreso than many constituencies, who the SDLP, along with others, will be trying to attract. Many of these voters will think that the woman is best placed to make difficult decisions and won't be attracted by those who deny them this choice.

I understand people being pro-life and fighting for it. Life is life and in my book it is a cause worth fighting for regardless of religious affiliation, sexual persuasion, gender....

what i dont get is why someone like you maguire would you strongly fight for abortion? what you gain?
I protect life with my efforts? what do you get?

It's not about me, or what I get.

What is it about then? Why do you care about it so much? Why do you champion death and abortion?

Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2016, 10:15:46 PM
What is it about then? Why do you care about it so much? Why do you champion death and abortion?

I support choice. It might not always be my choice, but I don't consider it my place to deny choice to someone who finds themselves in a difficult situation.

I also recognise that abortion happens anyway. The young woman who has been in the spotlight in relation to fatal foetal abnormality travelled to England for a termination, so the law in NI didn't prevent abortion, it just 'exported' it.

Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2016, 10:15:46 PM
What is it about then? Why do you care about it so much? Why do you champion death and abortion?

Iceman would you like a law telling you what you can and cannot do with your body?

Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2016, 09:39:16 PM

Quote from: No wides on February 11, 2016, 11:57:39 AM
The SDLP prove again they are not fit for purpose, they will do anything to oppose reform.  Things like this depress me - politicians elected on a green or orange vote deciding what is right for vulnerable women.

You could get a job as a politician yourself with your sweeping statements.

the majority of people in the occupied 6 are against abortion.

Just to pick up on the 'sweeping statement' again, a poll has indicated that you're not quite on the mark...
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/health/poll-shows-69-support-changes-to-abortion-law-30682964.html

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 10:42:11 PM
The young woman who has been in the spotlight in relation to fatal foetal abnormality travelled to England for a termination, so the law in NI didn't prevent abortion, it just 'exported' it.

So provided something exists somewhere in the world, it should be introduced here to save travel costs. How about female genital mutilation? Lowest common denominator to save an airfare?

Quote from: general_lee on February 11, 2016, 10:43:30 PM
Iceman would you like a law telling you what you can and cannot do with your body?

It already does, it regulates whether you can strike someone., for instance.

Pedantry and disingenuity aside, why does NI have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century?

Quote from: general_lee on February 11, 2016, 11:17:12 PM
Pedantry and disingenuity aside, why does NI have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century?

why does death and murder have to be viewed as progress? I thought you were putting pedantry and disingenuity aside?

Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2016, 11:19:07 PM

Quote from: general_lee on February 11, 2016, 11:17:12 PM
Pedantry and disingenuity aside, why does NI have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century?

why does death and murder have to be viewed as progress? I thought you were putting pedantry and disingenuity aside?

Murder? Who's being murdered here? Hyperbole and hysteria won't help your argument gain traction beyond what we all know it is - misguided religious zealotry

Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2016, 09:39:16 PM

Quote from: No wides on February 11, 2016, 11:57:39 AM
The SDLP prove again they are not fit for purpose, they will do anything to oppose reform.  Things like this depress me - politicians elected on a green or orange vote deciding what is right for vulnerable women.

You could get a job as a politician yourself with your sweeping statements.

the majority of people in the occupied 6 are against abortion.

Evidence?

Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2016, 09:49:57 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 09:39:03 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on February 11, 2016, 09:16:54 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 08:11:43 PM
The SDLP are a disaster on this. It may well come back to bite them in places like South Belfast. Eastwood had an opportunity to refresh the party after McDonnell and the least he could have done is given a free vote. I know a lot of younger people will be massively put off by this. I am.

Are South Belfast people especially keen on ending inconvenient lives?

South Belfast would have a young, liberal mass of voters, moreso than many constituencies, who the SDLP, along with others, will be trying to attract. Many of these voters will think that the woman is best placed to make difficult decisions and won't be attracted by those who deny them this choice.

I understand people being pro-life and fighting for it. Life is life and in my book it is a cause worth fighting for regardless of religious affiliation, sexual persuasion, gender....

what i dont get is why someone like you maguire would you strongly fight for abortion? what you gain?
I protect life with my efforts? what do you get?

A woman is raped - should she be forced to have that child?

Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2016, 10:15:46 PM
What is it about then? Why do you care about it so much? Why do you champion death and abortion?

Maybe he champions the rights of the woman?

Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2016, 11:19:07 PM

Quote from: general_lee on February 11, 2016, 11:17:12 PM
Pedantry and disingenuity aside, why does NI have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century?

why does death and murder have to be viewed as progress? I thought you were putting pedantry and disingenuity aside?

So women have no rights, easy for a man to come out with this shite.

Quote from: general_lee on February 11, 2016, 11:17:12 PM
Pedantry and disingenuity aside, why does NI have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century?

It has to go through the 18th century first

For all the pro choice and pro abortion posters on here, I would be interested in your opinions regarding the rights of the life growing inside the mother.

None of you seem to give any consideration to this life.

In the case of rape, why would killing the child be an acceptable reason to end a healthy life?

Quote from: No wides on February 11, 2016, 11:57:28 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2016, 09:49:57 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 09:39:03 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on February 11, 2016, 09:16:54 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 08:11:43 PM
The SDLP are a disaster on this. It may well come back to bite them in places like South Belfast. Eastwood had an opportunity to refresh the party after McDonnell and the least he could have done is given a free vote. I know a lot of younger people will be massively put off by this. I am.

Are South Belfast people especially keen on ending inconvenient lives?

South Belfast would have a young, liberal mass of voters, moreso than many constituencies, who the SDLP, along with others, will be trying to attract. Many of these voters will think that the woman is best placed to make difficult decisions and won't be attracted by those who deny them this choice.

I understand people being pro-life and fighting for it. Life is life and in my book it is a cause worth fighting for regardless of religious affiliation, sexual persuasion, gender....

what i dont get is why someone like you maguire would you strongly fight for abortion? what you gain?
I protect life with my efforts? what do you get?

A woman is raped - should she be forced to have that child?

who is forcing anyone to do anything? should a child be killed because the mother was raped?
I have a friend in belfast who was raped while travelling in Ethiopia. She originally planned to put the baby up for adoption and changed her mind when the baby was born.
there are always choices that don't have to involve killing a child....

Quote from: gallsman on February 11, 2016, 11:30:24 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2016, 11:19:07 PM

Quote from: general_lee on February 11, 2016, 11:17:12 PM
Pedantry and disingenuity aside, why does NI have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century?

why does death and murder have to be viewed as progress? I thought you were putting pedantry and disingenuity aside?

Murder? Who's being murdered here? Hyperbole and hysteria won't help your argument gain traction beyond what we all know it is - misguided religious zealotry

I'm glad you speak for the gabboard from spain and that you know anything about my intentions and their foundation.
I have 4 kids and 1 on the way - do you have kids? have you seen an ultasound of those kids in the womb? my stance on a childs life inside the womb is the same as my stance on a childs life outside of the womb - i will do what I can to protect them not because of my relationship with God but because of my relationship with life, with other humans.... if you were in bother and it was easier to just pull a chord and end your life I would fight for yours too

Quote from: Windmill abu on February 12, 2016, 12:57:14 AM
For all the pro choice and pro abortion posters on here, I would be interested in your opinions regarding the rights of the life growing inside the mother.

None of you seem to give any consideration to this life.

In the case of rape, why would killing the child be an acceptable reason to end a healthy life?

That's the dilemma for me.

I cannot see any justification for abortion as a form of birth control.

But, I also cannot see how society has the right to force a traumatized woman to carry the child of her rapist through birth.

Although one would hope that any raped woman would be offered or would take the morning-after pill immediately (obviously not every such woman will be in a position to obtain it).

And yeah, I know to some that morning after pill = abortion. Not to me.

Quote from: The Iceman on February 12, 2016, 01:25:49 AM

Quote from: No wides on February 11, 2016, 11:57:28 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2016, 09:49:57 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 09:39:03 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on February 11, 2016, 09:16:54 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 08:11:43 PM
The SDLP are a disaster on this. It may well come back to bite them in places like South Belfast. Eastwood had an opportunity to refresh the party after McDonnell and the least he could have done is given a free vote. I know a lot of younger people will be massively put off by this. I am.

Are South Belfast people especially keen on ending inconvenient lives?

South Belfast would have a young, liberal mass of voters, moreso than many constituencies, who the SDLP, along with others, will be trying to attract. Many of these voters will think that the woman is best placed to make difficult decisions and won't be attracted by those who deny them this choice.

I understand people being pro-life and fighting for it. Life is life and in my book it is a cause worth fighting for regardless of religious affiliation, sexual persuasion, gender....

what i dont get is why someone like you maguire would you strongly fight for abortion? what you gain?
I protect life with my efforts? what do you get?

A woman is raped - should she be forced to have that child?

who is forcing anyone to do anything? should a child be killed because the mother was raped?
I have a friend in belfast who was raped while travelling in Ethiopia. She originally planned to put the baby up for adoption and changed her mind when the baby was born.
there are always choices that don't have to involve killing a child....

So what do you say to such a woman?

"Tough shit, them's the breaks, see you in nine months, hope you have health insurance"

(Not being a smartarse - as I said in my previous post, this is a real dilemma for me)

QuoteQuote from: The Iceman on Today at 01:25:49 AM
Quote from: No wides on February 11, 2016, 11:57:28 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2016, 09:49:57 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 09:39:03 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 11, 2016, 09:16:54 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 08:11:43 PM
The SDLP are a disaster on this. It may well come back to bite them in places like South Belfast. Eastwood had an opportunity to refresh the party after McDonnell and the least he could have done is given a free vote. I know a lot of younger people will be massively put off by this. I am.

Are South Belfast people especially keen on ending inconvenient lives?
South Belfast would have a young, liberal mass of voters, moreso than many constituencies, who the SDLP, along with others, will be trying to attract. Many of these voters will think that the woman is best placed to make difficult decisions and won't be attracted by those who deny them this choice.
I understand people being pro-life and fighting for it. Life is life and in my book it is a cause worth fighting for regardless of religious affiliation, sexual persuasion, gender....

what i dont get is why someone like you maguire would you strongly fight for abortion? what you gain?
I protect life with my efforts? what do you get?

A woman is raped - should she be forced to have that child?

who is forcing anyone to do anything? should a child be killed because the mother was raped?
I have a friend in belfast who was raped while travelling in Ethiopia. She originally planned to put the baby up for adoption and changed her mind when the baby was born.
there are always choices that don't have to involve killing a child....

So what do you say to such a woman?

"Tough shit, them's the breaks, see you in nine months, hope you have health insurance"

(Not being a smartarse - as I said in my previous post, this is a real dilemma for me)

I can,t beleive I am responding to this post but since when did a human life be dependent on health insurance?

Quote from: The Iceman on February 12, 2016, 01:25:49 AM

Quote from: No wides on February 11, 2016, 11:57:28 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2016, 09:49:57 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 09:39:03 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on February 11, 2016, 09:16:54 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 08:11:43 PM
The SDLP are a disaster on this. It may well come back to bite them in places like South Belfast. Eastwood had an opportunity to refresh the party after McDonnell and the least he could have done is given a free vote. I know a lot of younger people will be massively put off by this. I am.

Are South Belfast people especially keen on ending inconvenient lives?

South Belfast would have a young, liberal mass of voters, moreso than many constituencies, who the SDLP, along with others, will be trying to attract. Many of these voters will think that the woman is best placed to make difficult decisions and won't be attracted by those who deny them this choice.

I understand people being pro-life and fighting for it. Life is life and in my book it is a cause worth fighting for regardless of religious affiliation, sexual persuasion, gender....

what i dont get is why someone like you maguire would you strongly fight for abortion? what you gain?
I protect life with my efforts? what do you get?

A woman is raped - should she be forced to have that child?

who is forcing anyone to do anything? should a child be killed because the mother was raped?
I have a friend in belfast who was raped while travelling in Ethiopia. She originally planned to put the baby up for adoption and changed her mind when the baby was born.
there are always choices that don't have to involve killing a child....

So if she was raped by her father / uncle / brother - you would force her to have the child, only a man would have this view as is evident by the gobshites in stormount.

Quote from: Windmill abu on February 12, 2016, 02:03:04 AM

QuoteQuote from: The Iceman on Today at 01:25:49 AM
Quote from: No wides on February 11, 2016, 11:57:28 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2016, 09:49:57 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 09:39:03 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 11, 2016, 09:16:54 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 08:11:43 PM
The SDLP are a disaster on this. It may well come back to bite them in places like South Belfast. Eastwood had an opportunity to refresh the party after McDonnell and the least he could have done is given a free vote. I know a lot of younger people will be massively put off by this. I am.

Are South Belfast people especially keen on ending inconvenient lives?
South Belfast would have a young, liberal mass of voters, moreso than many constituencies, who the SDLP, along with others, will be trying to attract. Many of these voters will think that the woman is best placed to make difficult decisions and won't be attracted by those who deny them this choice.
I understand people being pro-life and fighting for it. Life is life and in my book it is a cause worth fighting for regardless of religious affiliation, sexual persuasion, gender....

what i dont get is why someone like you maguire would you strongly fight for abortion? what you gain?
I protect life with my efforts? what do you get?

A woman is raped - should she be forced to have that child?

who is forcing anyone to do anything? should a child be killed because the mother was raped?
I have a friend in belfast who was raped while travelling in Ethiopia. She originally planned to put the baby up for adoption and changed her mind when the baby was born.
there are always choices that don't have to involve killing a child....

So what do you say to such a woman?

"Tough shit, them's the breaks, see you in nine months, hope you have health insurance"

(Not being a smartarse - as I said in my previous post, this is a real dilemma for me)

I can,t beleive I am responding to this post but since when did a human life be dependent on health insurance?

You've never been to the states I take it?

Lack of access to prenatal care is often a huge problem for poor women. Medical bills are one of the biggest causes of bankruptcies.

But that aside, and given that you yourself asked for opinions, what's yours on the other points I raised?

Do you feel that society should compel a rape victim to carry the child of her rapist through birth?

Quote from: The Iceman on February 12, 2016, 01:31:50 AM

Quote from: gallsman on February 11, 2016, 11:30:24 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2016, 11:19:07 PM

Quote from: general_lee on February 11, 2016, 11:17:12 PM
Pedantry and disingenuity aside, why does NI have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century?

why does death and murder have to be viewed as progress? I thought you were putting pedantry and disingenuity aside?

Murder? Who's being murdered here? Hyperbole and hysteria won't help your argument gain traction beyond what we all know it is - misguided religious zealotry

I'm glad you speak for the gabboard from spain and that you know anything about my intentions and their foundation.
I have 4 kids and 1 on the way - do you have kids? have you seen an ultasound of those kids in the womb? my stance on a childs life inside the womb is the same as my stance on a childs life outside of the womb - i will do what I can to protect them not because of my relationship with God but because of my relationship with life, with other humans.... if you were in bother and it was easier to just pull a chord and end your life I would fight for yours too

In "the womb". Not your womb, not my womb. Inside the womb of a female human being. Her body, her choice.

Quote from: The Iceman on February 12, 2016, 01:25:49 AM

Quote from: No wides on February 11, 2016, 11:57:28 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2016, 09:49:57 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 09:39:03 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on February 11, 2016, 09:16:54 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 11, 2016, 08:11:43 PM
The SDLP are a disaster on this. It may well come back to bite them in places like South Belfast. Eastwood had an opportunity to refresh the party after McDonnell and the least he could have done is given a free vote. I know a lot of younger people will be massively put off by this. I am.

Are South Belfast people especially keen on ending inconvenient lives?

South Belfast would have a young, liberal mass of voters, moreso than many constituencies, who the SDLP, along with others, will be trying to attract. Many of these voters will think that the woman is best placed to make difficult decisions and won't be attracted by those who deny them this choice.

I understand people being pro-life and fighting for it. Life is life and in my book it is a cause worth fighting for regardless of religious affiliation, sexual persuasion, gender....

what i dont get is why someone like you maguire would you strongly fight for abortion? what you gain?
I protect life with my efforts? what do you get?

A woman is raped - should she be forced to have that child?

who is forcing anyone to do anything? should a child be killed because the mother was raped?
I have a friend in belfast who was raped while travelling in Ethiopia. She originally planned to put the baby up for adoption and changed her mind when the baby was born.
there are always choices that don't have to involve killing a child....

All due respect, but what the f**k does the fact that your friend kept the baby have to do with anything? I don't think anybody's suggesting that it's not possible for someone to become attached to a cold, even if she's impregnated as a result of rape? Why should her choice (and well done to get on a very brave choice) matter one iota to the next rape victim who can't stand the thought of a child growing inside her?

Quote from: The Iceman on February 11, 2016, 11:19:07 PM

Quote from: general_lee on February 11, 2016, 11:17:12 PM
Pedantry and disingenuity aside, why does NI have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century?

why does death and murder have to be viewed as progress? I thought you were putting pedantry and disingenuity aside?

So, a pregnant woman that is carrying a highly deformed foetus that will be dead upon or shortly after birth should be forced to carry that highly deformed foetus on the miniscule to non-existent chance that it might survive. And YOU want to make that decision for her, rather than let HER; the one who has to actually go through with the birth have the choice as to whether she wants to give birth to a highly deformed and likely already dead baby.

Let's shake it up a wee bit and say the pregnancy was the result of a serious sexual assault by a sibling. And let's say she isn't an adult woman but a young teenager.

Do you still think she should be forced to go through with that trauma? Are Christians not meant to be compassionate?

No the holy rollers on here pick and choose what to be compassionate about.  It amazes me a man can tell a woman what is right for them.

a lot of you are quoting extreme cases and asking us for responses. What would you do if? What would happen if? None of us are equipped to deal with these - we are not professionals. Thankfully there are hundreds of thousands of professionals in crisis pregnancy centers who are equipped with the words, options and compassion to support women through this.
A start on all our part is to be at least open to life rather than demonizing the child. kids are kids. Do we call John the alcoholic's son? or Mary the murderer's daughter? a child is a child - if it's the result of a rape it will still be a child....
in 2015 there were 40-50 million global abortions. 125,000 babies killed per day. Let that sink in.
Try to disassociate the humanity of it all by labeling a child as something else - likening it to a common cold as our good friend gallsman did

125,000 abortions per day - how many of those are as a result of abnormalities? how many as a result of rape or incest? all 125,000 you would imagine given the reports of the pro death champions on here...

do you see many down syndrome children today? heard of any born recently?
we as a race, as humans, as people are choosing who gets to live and who gets to die and explaining it away as womens rights

Quote from: The Iceman on February 12, 2016, 03:50:52 PM
a lot of you are quoting extreme cases and asking us for responses. What would you do if? What would happen if? None of us are equipped to deal with these - we are not professionals. Thankfully there are hundreds of thousands of professionals in crisis pregnancy centers who are equipped with the words, options and compassion to support women through this.
A start on all our part is to be at least open to life rather than demonizing the child. kids are kids. Do we call John the alcoholic's son? or Mary the murderer's daughter? a child is a child - if it's the result of a rape it will still be a child....
in 2015 there were 40-50 million global abortions. 125,000 babies killed per day. Let that sink in.
Try to disassociate the humanity of it all by labeling a child as something else - likening it to a common cold as our good friend gallsman did

125,000 abortions per day - how many of those are as a result of abnormalities? how many as a result of rape or incest? all 125,000 you would imagine given the reports of the pro death champions on here...

do you see many down syndrome children today? heard of any born recently?
we as a race, as humans, as people are choosing who gets to live and who gets to die and explaining it away as womens rights

But in your opinion every pregnancy should be continued, be that a child being raped or a woman being raped?

Iceman, distinguish between pro-abortion and pro-choice. I don't support abortion if and when and pregnant woman takes a notion for one. You have to quote extreme permutations so that all possible eventualities are covered under law. It is utterly unfair to force a woman into going through with a pregnancy in such circumstances.

Quote from: general_lee on February 12, 2016, 04:30:36 PM
Iceman, distinguish between pro-abortion and pro-choice. I don't support abortion if and when and pregnant woman takes a notion for one. You have to quote extreme permutations so that all possible eventualities are covered under law. It is utterly unfair to force a woman into going through with a pregnancy in such circumstances.

Yeah I don't support abortion if the person just decides it doesn't suit them as that' not childs fault, in the extreme situations that are being mentioned (rape being the main one and the child being born dead) then I am unsure the woman should have to go through the trauma involved as it does no one any favours..

Quote from: The Iceman on February 12, 2016, 03:50:52 PM
in 2015 there were 40-50 million global abortions. 125,000 babies killed per day. Let that sink in.

It's sunk in. I don't rejoice in it, but the alternative - forcing all those women to have unwanted babies - is worse.

Quote from: deiseach on February 12, 2016, 04:45:37 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on February 12, 2016, 03:50:52 PM
in 2015 there were 40-50 million global abortions. 125,000 babies killed per day. Let that sink in.

It's sunk in. I don't rejoice in it, but the alternative - forcing all those women to have unwanted babies - is worse.

So your stance is that if a woman doesn't want the child then it should be aborted? Do you have a time limit on that? 20 weeks, 30 weeks, 39 weeks? what about the day after it's born?

I still can't get over the fact that any of you believe your opinion should have any say on what a woman does with her body.

Somebody earlier mentioned abortion being used as a form of birth control. Is it? How many women go about the place thinking "yeah sure, don't bag up even though I'm not on the pill. Worst comes to worst, I'll just have an abortion." I'd say that number is absolutely miniscule.

As for 125,000 abortions a day, I agree that that's an absolutely horrific number. Who wouldn't? Do those abortions occur simply because the option is available though? No, absolutely not

Quote from: gallsman on February 12, 2016, 05:49:35 PM
I still can't get over the fact that any of you believe your opinion should have any say on what a woman does with her body.

Somebody earlier mentioned abortion being used as a form of birth control. Is it? How many women go about the place thinking "yeah sure, don't bag up even though I'm not on the pill. Worst comes to worst, I'll just have an abortion." Is say that number is absolutely miniscule.

As for 125,000 abortions a day, I agree that that's an absolutely horrific number. Who wouldn't? Do those abortions occur simply because the option is available though? No, absolutely not

Where do you draw the line?
Or is every abortion OK in your eyes because it's a womans body and she can choose what she wants to do?

No doubt this thread will go on and on.
However, there is a fundamental gap between those who think that a life is disposable for the convenience of others and those who do and this gap is not closed by examples.

Quote from: gallsman on February 12, 2016, 05:49:35 PM
I still can't get over the fact that any of you believe your opinion should have any say on what a woman does with her body.

Somebody earlier mentioned abortion being used as a form of birth control. Is it? How many women go about the place thinking "yeah sure, don't bag up even though I'm not on the pill. Worst comes to worst, I'll just have an abortion." I'd say that number is absolutely miniscule.

As for 125,000 abortions a day, I agree that that's an absolutely horrific number. Who wouldn't? Do those abortions occur simply because the option is available though? No, absolutely not

I used the abortion as birth control example.

What are the stats? Are most abortions due to rape or terminally compromised development of the child? Or do most opt because they don't want the pregnancy? Because the latter IS birth control.

I can only pull numbers from the US CDC but I would presume that they would be telling of most of the world:

On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).
Only 12% of women included a physical problem with their health among reasons for having an abortion (NAF).
One per cent (of aborting women) reported that they were the survivors of rape (NAF).

Making abortion available results in abortion being used as a form of birth control based on these numbers?

Not surprisingly the most abortions occur in California, NY and Florida (more specifically Miami...)
why? because a child doesn't fit in with the lifestyle being led by most people in these metropolitan areas...

People not wanting the pregnancy is different from using it as birth control - what I'm suggesting is very few people will actually avoid safe sex because they're aware that abortion is available, therefore reducing the need for safe sex.

Accidents happen, and if they do, in my opinion, the woman should have the right to avail herself of abortion services if she so chooses. I don't particularly like it, and believe there should be much more education and awareness of alternatives, but the option should be there - her body, her choice.

People often use worst case scenarios when advocating abortion. What if the woman was raped or a victim of incest etc.
I fully agree these are sensitive situations and need to be looked at differently than other abortion cases.
I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the decision to abort in such cases but I do agree it deserves further debate and I would respect a woman's choice in such a case.

However,how many of all abortions are of such cases. What about the cases such as Mary going on a night out and having a one night stand and discovering a few months later that she is pregnant.
Mary says to herself, oh fcuk I wanted to go to Australia this year,ah fcuk it sure I'll have an abortion.
I can't agree with abortion in such circumstance.

In the UK it is legal to have an abortion at 40 weeks if it is discovered the baby has a disability. 40 weeks!!...That's full term.
There is only one word for that..it's murder pure and simple.I'm not talking about fatal fetal abnormalities here,which is about the only time I would agree with abortion. I'm talking about conditions such as Down Syndrome and Spina bifida.
How is aborting these babies at 40 weeks any different to letting them being born and then killing them. It is no different in my opinion.

Quote from: The Iceman on February 12, 2016, 03:50:52 PM
a lot of you are quoting extreme cases and asking us for responses.

It's worth noting that the vote in Stormont this week was for a very narrow change in the law, for cases of fatal foetal abnormality. All of these would, by their nature, be extreme cases.

its funny if you google the term "fatal fetal abnormality" its the NI laws that show up . you struggle to find it mentioned anywhere else - in fact some articles are health practitioners stating there is no such term - yet in NI there is a law based on it.....

Quote from: The Iceman on February 12, 2016, 07:42:06 PM
its funny if you google the term "fatal fetal abnormality" its the NI laws that show up . you struggle to find it mentioned anywhere else - in fact some articles are health practitioners stating there is no such term - yet in NI there is a law based on it.....

What law is that?

Quote from: Maguire01 on February 12, 2016, 07:44:45 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on February 12, 2016, 07:42:06 PM
its funny if you google the term "fatal fetal abnormality" its the NI laws that show up . you struggle to find it mentioned anywhere else - in fact some articles are health practitioners stating there is no such term - yet in NI there is a law based on it.....

What law is that?

my apologies - no law - a conversation, a vote.
Perhaps you will address some of my points now that you've shown everyone how smart you are

Any thoughts on the young lady convicted of abortion in NI??

There was bloody murder in the US when Trump suggested women should be punished for having an abortion. . . I'm not seeing such an outcry about it over here although had she been given a custodial sentence I think the place would have went apeshit!!!

There have been calls that the sentence was too lenient by some of those abortion groups...

Quote from: screenexile on April 06, 2016, 07:56:41 PM
Any thoughts on the young lady convicted of abortion in NI??

There was bloody murder in the US when Trump suggested women should be punished for having an abortion. . . I'm not seeing such an outcry about it over here although had she been given a custodial sentence I think the place would have went apeshit!!!

It amounts to criminalising a young girl because she was poor. Had she the money she'd have been across the water had it done and no one would be any the wiser. And don't get me started on that psycho Bernie Smyth. Whatever cause she thinks she is progressing she is doing it no favours at all.

Quote from: 93-DY-SAM on April 06, 2016, 08:33:52 PM
It amounts to criminalising a young girl because she was poor. Had she the money she'd have been across the water had it done and no one would be any the wiser. And don't get me started on that psycho Bernie Smyth. Whatever cause she thinks she is progressing she is doing it no favours at all.

Complete nonsense. She committed a criminal offence and got a criminal sentence. Nothing to do with being poor. It is complete bollix to claim that people should be allowed break the law in one place because in some other place in the world that activity is not against the law.

Quote from: armaghniac on April 06, 2016, 09:07:54 PM

Quote from: 93-DY-SAM on April 06, 2016, 08:33:52 PM
It amounts to criminalising a young girl because she was poor. Had she the money she'd have been across the water had it done and no one would be any the wiser. And don't get me started on that psycho Bernie Smyth. Whatever cause she thinks she is progressing she is doing it no favours at all.

Complete nonsense. She committed a criminal offence and got a criminal sentence. Nothing to do with being poor. It is complete bollix to claim that people should be allowed break the law in one place because in some other place in the world that activity is not against the law.

Criminal because of a 150 year old law. Hardly the foundation for good law.

Quote from: 93-DY-SAM on April 06, 2016, 09:33:05 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 06, 2016, 09:07:54 PM

Quote from: 93-DY-SAM on April 06, 2016, 08:33:52 PM
It amounts to criminalising a young girl because she was poor. Had she the money she'd have been across the water had it done and no one would be any the wiser. And don't get me started on that psycho Bernie Smyth. Whatever cause she thinks she is progressing she is doing it no favours at all.

Complete nonsense. She committed a criminal offence and got a criminal sentence. Nothing to do with being poor. It is complete bollix to claim that people should be allowed break the law in one place because in some other place in the world that activity is not against the law.

Criminal because of a 150 year old law. Hardly the foundation for good law.

The case for abortion is one thing. But these arguments about the cost of travelling, the age of the law and so forth are ridiculous. Killing people , of which abortion is a variation, has been prohibited for a very long time, but this is not necessarily a reason to permit it.

Quote from: screenexile on April 06, 2016, 07:56:41 PM
Any thoughts on the young lady convicted of abortion in NI??

I think it shows that making it illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Is this not the type of situation  that the Marie Stopes organisation caters for? Is there still one in Belfast or was it burned out or something?

Quote from: bennydorano on April 06, 2016, 11:28:34 PM
Is this not the type of situation  that the Marie Stopes organisation caters for? Is there still one in Belfast or was it burned out or something?

Nope it's still there despite the nutters trying to shut it down.

Believe it or not abortion is allowed under anI law but only under very strict parameters . . .

QuoteTo preserve the life of the mother.

If the continuance of the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, or would adversely affect her mental or physical health. In most cases, the risk of the adverse effect occurring would need to be a probability, but a possibility might be regarded as sufficient if the imminent death of the mother was the potential adverse effect.

Along with the above abortion in this case can only be carried out up to 9 weeks. Anything after that you have to go across the water or else it's illegal!

My issue with the whole thing is that the Unionists want to be part of the UK but don't want to accept their law on abortion??? If NI is part of the UK then surely it should have the same laws??

Abortion is going to be made legal. It is inevitable. The current set up.whereby 5k Irish abortions are outsourced to heathen England is a joke. Women deserve the final say over what happens with their own bodies. The recent cases over that Indian lady and the dead woman with the open head wound should have been enough.  Both the legal and medical professions are a disgrace.

Quote from: seafoid on April 07, 2016, 07:06:56 AM
Abortion is going to be made legal. It is inevitable. The current set up.whereby 5k Irish abortions are outsourced to heathen England is a joke. Women deserve the final say over what happens with their own bodies. The recent cases over that Indian lady and the dead woman with the open head wound should have been enough.  Both the legal and medical professions are a disgrace.

I would blame the right wing politicians in power for it more than medical or legal professions!

Quote from: armaghniac on April 06, 2016, 09:07:54 PM

Quote from: 93-DY-SAM on April 06, 2016, 08:33:52 PM
It amounts to criminalising a young girl because she was poor. Had she the money she'd have been across the water had it done and no one would be any the wiser. And don't get me started on that psycho Bernie Smyth. Whatever cause she thinks she is progressing she is doing it no favours at all.

Complete nonsense. She committed a criminal offence and got a criminal sentence. Nothing to do with being poor. It is complete bollix to claim that people should be allowed break the law in one place because in some other place in the world that activity is not against the law.

Bullshit there are some laws in existence today that you wouldn't be prosecuted for, the sooner religion is taken out of Norn Ireland politics the better for us all, no doubt though that is generations away with halfwits voting in the same bigoted c***ts in May as usual.

Quote from: No wides on April 07, 2016, 10:34:32 AM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 06, 2016, 09:07:54 PM

Quote from: 93-DY-SAM on April 06, 2016, 08:33:52 PM
It amounts to criminalising a young girl because she was poor. Had she the money she'd have been across the water had it done and no one would be any the wiser. And don't get me started on that psycho Bernie Smyth. Whatever cause she thinks she is progressing she is doing it no favours at all.

Complete nonsense. She committed a criminal offence and got a criminal sentence. Nothing to do with being poor. It is complete bollix to claim that people should be allowed break the law in one place because in some other place in the world that activity is not against the law.

Bullshit there are some laws in existence today that you wouldn't be prosecuted for, the sooner religion is taken out of Norn Ireland politics the better for us all, no doubt though that is generations away with halfwits voting in the same bigoted c***ts in May as usual.

That is one for the Grinds my gears threads. When will people here realise that every election is not a referendum on a UI and vote on policies other than tribalism.

Quote from: armaghniac on April 06, 2016, 09:37:01 PM

Quote from: 93-DY-SAM on April 06, 2016, 09:33:05 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 06, 2016, 09:07:54 PM

Quote from: 93-DY-SAM on April 06, 2016, 08:33:52 PM
It amounts to criminalising a young girl because she was poor. Had she the money she'd have been across the water had it done and no one would be any the wiser. And don't get me started on that psycho Bernie Smyth. Whatever cause she thinks she is progressing she is doing it no favours at all.

Complete nonsense. She committed a criminal offence and got a criminal sentence. Nothing to do with being poor. It is complete bollix to claim that people should be allowed break the law in one place because in some other place in the world that activity is not against the law.

Criminal because of a 150 year old law. Hardly the foundation for good law.

The case for abortion is one thing. But these arguments about the cost of travelling, the age of the law and so forth are ridiculous. Killing people , of which abortion is a variation, has been prohibited for a very long time, but this is not necessarily a reason to permit it.

Destroying a bunch of cells is not killing someone. Even in this case, at 12 weeks, it is not killing someone. No person was killed.

Quote from: general_lee on April 07, 2016, 12:13:41 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 06, 2016, 09:37:01 PM

Quote from: 93-DY-SAM on April 06, 2016, 09:33:05 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 06, 2016, 09:07:54 PM

Quote from: 93-DY-SAM on April 06, 2016, 08:33:52 PM
It amounts to criminalising a young girl because she was poor. Had she the money she'd have been across the water had it done and no one would be any the wiser. And don't get me started on that psycho Bernie Smyth. Whatever cause she thinks she is progressing she is doing it no favours at all.

Complete nonsense. She committed a criminal offence and got a criminal sentence. Nothing to do with being poor. It is complete bollix to claim that people should be allowed break the law in one place because in some other place in the world that activity is not against the law.

Criminal because of a 150 year old law. Hardly the foundation for good law.

The case for abortion is one thing. But these arguments about the cost of travelling, the age of the law and so forth are ridiculous. Killing people , of which abortion is a variation, has been prohibited for a very long time, but this is not necessarily a reason to permit it.

Destroying a bunch of cells is not killing someone. Even in this case, at 12 weeks, it is not killing someone. No person was killed.

So if a woman miscarriages at 12 weeks she shouldn't be upset because she hasn't lost a baby but only a bunch of cells?

Quote from: laoislad on April 07, 2016, 12:17:18 PM

Quote from: general_lee on April 07, 2016, 12:13:41 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 06, 2016, 09:37:01 PM

Quote from: 93-DY-SAM on April 06, 2016, 09:33:05 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 06, 2016, 09:07:54 PM

Quote from: 93-DY-SAM on April 06, 2016, 08:33:52 PM
It amounts to criminalising a young girl because she was poor. Had she the money she'd have been across the water had it done and no one would be any the wiser. And don't get me started on that psycho Bernie Smyth. Whatever cause she thinks she is progressing she is doing it no favours at all.

Complete nonsense. She committed a criminal offence and got a criminal sentence. Nothing to do with being poor. It is complete bollix to claim that people should be allowed break the law in one place because in some other place in the world that activity is not against the law.

Criminal because of a 150 year old law. Hardly the foundation for good law.

The case for abortion is one thing. But these arguments about the cost of travelling, the age of the law and so forth are ridiculous. Killing people , of which abortion is a variation, has been prohibited for a very long time, but this is not necessarily a reason to permit it.

Destroying a bunch of cells is not killing someone. Even in this case, at 12 weeks, it is not killing someone. No person was killed.

So if a woman miscarriages at 12 weeks she shouldn't be upset because she hasn't lost a baby but only a bunch of cells?

Of course she should; but you're missing the point entirely.

Out of interest, when does the bunch of cells gain rights?

Quote from: lfdown2 on April 07, 2016, 02:16:10 PM
Out of interest, when does the bunch of cells gain rights?

You tell me

Quote from: screenexile on April 07, 2016, 10:23:58 AM

Quote from: seafoid on April 07, 2016, 07:06:56 AM
Abortion is going to be made legal. It is inevitable. The current set up.whereby 5k Irish abortions are outsourced to heathen England is a joke. Women deserve the final say over what happens with their own bodies. The recent cases over that Indian lady and the dead woman with the open head wound should have been enough.  Both the legal and medical professions are a disgrace.

I would blame the right wing politicians in power for it more than medical or legal professions!

+1
The legal and medical professionals can only work within the law as it stands. It's up to politicians to make the changes.

Quote from: Maguire01 on April 07, 2016, 05:39:43 PM

Quote from: screenexile on April 07, 2016, 10:23:58 AM

Quote from: seafoid on April 07, 2016, 07:06:56 AM
Abortion is going to be made legal. It is inevitable. The current set up.whereby 5k Irish abortions are outsourced to heathen England is a joke. Women deserve the final say over what happens with their own bodies. The recent cases over that Indian lady and the dead woman with the open head wound should have been enough.  Both the legal and medical professions are a disgrace.

I would blame the right wing politicians in power for it more than medical or legal professions!

+1
The legal and medical professionals can only work within the law as it stands. It's up to politicians to make the changes.

The legal profession has resisted change for a long, long time.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/european-commission-urges-dublin-to-enact-contentious-legal-reform-bill-in-full-1.1818119 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/european-commission-urges-dublin-to-enact-contentious-legal-reform-bill-in-full-1.1818119)
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/troika-legal-reforms-now-face-delays-1.2006102 (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/troika-legal-reforms-now-face-delays-1.2006102)

Quote from: muppet on April 07, 2016, 05:42:49 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on April 07, 2016, 05:39:43 PM

Quote from: screenexile on April 07, 2016, 10:23:58 AM

Quote from: seafoid on April 07, 2016, 07:06:56 AM
Abortion is going to be made legal. It is inevitable. The current set up.whereby 5k Irish abortions are outsourced to heathen England is a joke. Women deserve the final say over what happens with their own bodies. The recent cases over that Indian lady and the dead woman with the open head wound should have been enough.  Both the legal and medical professions are a disgrace.

I would blame the right wing politicians in power for it more than medical or legal professions!

+1
The legal and medical professionals can only work within the law as it stands. It's up to politicians to make the changes.

The legal profession has resisted change for a long, long time.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/european-commission-urges-dublin-to-enact-contentious-legal-reform-bill-in-full-1.1818119 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/european-commission-urges-dublin-to-enact-contentious-legal-reform-bill-in-full-1.1818119)
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/troika-legal-reforms-now-face-delays-1.2006102 (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/troika-legal-reforms-now-face-delays-1.2006102)

Am I missing something in those links? I can see nothing related to the matter being discussed here.

Quote from: Maguire01 on April 07, 2016, 07:47:30 PM

Quote from: muppet on April 07, 2016, 05:42:49 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on April 07, 2016, 05:39:43 PM

Quote from: screenexile on April 07, 2016, 10:23:58 AM

Quote from: seafoid on April 07, 2016, 07:06:56 AM
Abortion is going to be made legal. It is inevitable. The current set up.whereby 5k Irish abortions are outsourced to heathen England is a joke. Women deserve the final say over what happens with their own bodies. The recent cases over that Indian lady and the dead woman with the open head wound should have been enough.  Both the legal and medical professions are a disgrace.

I would blame the right wing politicians in power for it more than medical or legal professions!

+1
The legal and medical professionals can only work within the law as it stands. It's up to politicians to make the changes.

The legal profession has resisted change for a long, long time.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/european-commission-urges-dublin-to-enact-contentious-legal-reform-bill-in-full-1.1818119 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/european-commission-urges-dublin-to-enact-contentious-legal-reform-bill-in-full-1.1818119)
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/troika-legal-reforms-now-face-delays-1.2006102 (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/troika-legal-reforms-now-face-delays-1.2006102)

Am I missing something in those links? I can see nothing related to the matter being discussed here.

There is nothing about abortion in those links. My point was it is more than right wing politicians that block change in Ireland.

Quote from: muppet on April 07, 2016, 08:14:44 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on April 07, 2016, 07:47:30 PM

Quote from: muppet on April 07, 2016, 05:42:49 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on April 07, 2016, 05:39:43 PM

Quote from: screenexile on April 07, 2016, 10:23:58 AM

Quote from: seafoid on April 07, 2016, 07:06:56 AM
Abortion is going to be made legal. It is inevitable. The current set up.whereby 5k Irish abortions are outsourced to heathen England is a joke. Women deserve the final say over what happens with their own bodies. The recent cases over that Indian lady and the dead woman with the open head wound should have been enough.  Both the legal and medical professions are a disgrace.

I would blame the right wing politicians in power for it more than medical or legal professions!

+1
The legal and medical professionals can only work within the law as it stands. It's up to politicians to make the changes.

The legal profession has resisted change for a long, long time.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/european-commission-urges-dublin-to-enact-contentious-legal-reform-bill-in-full-1.1818119 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/european-commission-urges-dublin-to-enact-contentious-legal-reform-bill-in-full-1.1818119)
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/troika-legal-reforms-now-face-delays-1.2006102 (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/troika-legal-reforms-now-face-delays-1.2006102)

Am I missing something in those links? I can see nothing related to the matter being discussed here.

There is nothing about abortion in those links. My point was it is more than right wing politicians that block change in Ireland.

The links refer to changes that would affect the legal profession themselves. I see nothing of them blocking progress on this or similar matters. It's totally down to the politicians.

Quote from: muppet on April 07, 2016, 08:14:44 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on April 07, 2016, 07:47:30 PM

Quote from: muppet on April 07, 2016, 05:42:49 PM

Quote from: Maguire01 on April 07, 2016, 05:39:43 PM

Quote from: screenexile on April 07, 2016, 10:23:58 AM

Quote from: seafoid on April 07, 2016, 07:06:56 AM
Abortion is going to be made legal. It is inevitable. The current set up.whereby 5k Irish abortions are outsourced to heathen England is a joke. Women deserve the final say over what happens with their own bodies. The recent cases over that Indian lady and the dead woman with the open head wound should have been enough.  Both the legal and medical professions are a disgrace.

I would blame the right wing politicians in power for it more than medical or legal professions!

+1
The legal and medical professionals can only work within the law as it stands. It's up to politicians to make the changes.

The legal profession has resisted change for a long, long time.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/european-commission-urges-dublin-to-enact-contentious-legal-reform-bill-in-full-1.1818119 (http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/european-commission-urges-dublin-to-enact-contentious-legal-reform-bill-in-full-1.1818119)
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/troika-legal-reforms-now-face-delays-1.2006102 (http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/troika-legal-reforms-now-face-delays-1.2006102)

Am I missing something in those links? I can see nothing related to the matter being discussed here.

There is nothing about abortion in those links. My point was it is more than right wing politicians that block change in Ireland.

And therein lies the crux of the problem least on the North. We have the worlds most inept politicians at Stormont who are incapable of dealing with grown up adult politics.

The prods in the north as a group are insane . I think 1641 has a lot to do with it.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/una-mullally-greetings-from-ireland-the-land-of-balance-and-crazy-abortion-laws-1.2602436

Una Mullally: Greetings from Ireland - the land of balance and crazy abortion laws

Growing chorus of British journalists condemning our brutal, criminalising, archaic and oppressive abortion laws



Greetings from Ireland! I hope you're all keeping well. We're doing a grand old job here looking after ourselves thank you very much. There have been protestors outside Government Buildings for the last fortnight calling for the repeal of the eighth amendment. Not that we have a government, but I'm sure that will sort itself out. And up the North aren't mad things always happening? This week they gave a woman a three-month suspended sentence for getting drugs that would induce a miscarriage. Today, the trial of a mother who tried to get similar pills for her daughter was adjourned in Belfast.

Greetings from Ireland, where as the popular UK website The Pool put it, "when a country bans abortion, it creates horror stories." We're used to horror stories in Ireland. We're good at them. The dead girl in a grotto. The dead baby on a beach. The dead babies in mass unmarked graves. The women imprisoned. The crying girls in airports and ferry terminals. The braindead woman kept alive because a constitution owns her womb. The deathly, sinister, painful silence. Greetings from Ireland. Help.

I laughed hearing an American reporter on Morning Ireland the other day talking about the controversy Donald Trump caused when he merely suggested women should be punished for having abortions. How ridiculous it sounded, the Irish national broadcaster reporting on that incident, when there's an alarm bell that goes off in RTE anytime someone Irish mentions abortion - not the Angelus by the way, a little more hysterical than that. "Balance!" it shrieks! "Balance!" Just as broadcasters made fools of themselves clambering for anti-gay-rights opinions in the lead up to the marriage referendum, they continue to see voices that are pro-choice as things that need to be not listened to but opposed.

What "balance" is really about is censorship. Women get balanced. Gays get balanced. If only they'd stop talking about their rights. If only we could keep our fingers in our ears without hearing these horror stories. Balance. Help.

It doesn't matter how vigorously the UN or Amnesty or the EU or whoever else shake their heads and wag their fingers in our direction when it comes to the human rights violations regarding women's reproductive rights in Ireland. The Irish media isn't so hot on debate or conversation or trying to solve this issue, it's "balancing" that is the priority. We're grand, thanks a million. This is Ireland and we can sort out our own messes, Irish solutions to Irish problems. They always work, don't? The outsiders just don't understand us. We're a complex country. Nothing makes sense. Ha! It's gas really.

But now, abortion and balance and the media collide and collide over and over again, and we can't see the wood for the trees. For decades, the Irish media has largely collaborated in the silencing of women and ignoring the scandal of denying us medical care. That silence is breaking, but only barely. Where are the media campaigns to end the oppression of Irish women? Where are the hard-hitting documentaries and investigative reports? Where is RTE only swinging in the breeze of the hot air the coordinated complaints of anti-choice activists blow when the abortion alarm sounds?

What Irish women North and South can hope for now is external pressure. The British media balked at the story this week that a woman is a criminal because she got pills to end her pregnancy. Pills that are common elsewhere. Too poor to travel, this was her only way to access the medical care her home denied. There is a growing chorus of British journalists and news outlets and especially female columnists condemning our brutal, criminalising, archaic and oppressive laws.

In the centenary of the 1916 Rising, let's hope Britain can save us, eh? Maybe something bigger will happen, an even greater horror story, something really major that external media will use to embarrassed into action. Denying women bodily autonomy here ends up on England's doorstep. If we can't address it, maybe they will? Help. Greetings from Ireland and thank God for England. Sure where would we be without them? I suppose we'd have to arrest at lot more women. That would be terribly inconvenient, and then even more international media would be mean to us.

Greetings from Ireland, where young women who desperately don't want to be pregnant are informed upon, and the police come for them, vulnerable and afraid, and they are stood up in front of judges who criminalise them with ancient legislation, and when we talk about it, the media decides it can't be spoken about alone but pitched against the very rhetoric that got us here and keeps us here. But don't worry, it's only women. And what are they going to do? Arrest us all? Help.

Nothing like well a well unbalanced article.
One week it is all about how men died so that we can have different laws from the British and the next week there is a campaign to have them the same because the British don't agree. The Irish Times hasn't changed its role much in 100 years.

Quote from: general_lee on April 07, 2016, 12:13:41 PM
Destroying a bunch of cells is not killing someone. Even in this case, at 12 weeks, it is not killing someone. No person was killed.

I have never got a good scientific answer to when a bunch of cells becomes a person.  That has always made me uncomfortable about abortion.  At 12 weeks that bunch of cells has many "person" functions:

http://www.babycentre.co.uk/12-weeks-pregnant (http://www.babycentre.co.uk/12-weeks-pregnant)

And certainly if I read Ms Mullaly's article below about bodily autonomy it would appear that you are not a person until born if mother's bodily autonomy is sacrosanct.  So a baby seconds from birth is less a person than a baby just born?

Equally I have a distaste for pro-lifers disdain for complicated situations like FFA, rape, incest cases etc..

One thing I do believe is that anyone bearing absolute views on this matter and that are not conflicted have serious issues.

/Jim.

Quote from: armaghniac on April 08, 2016, 11:23:51 AM
Nothing like well a well unbalanced article.
One week it is all about how men died so that we can have different laws from the British and the next week there is a campaign to have them the same because the British don't agree. The Irish Times hasn't changed its role much in 100 years.

A fairly well penned article; because it doesn't fall in line with your opinion doesn't make it unbalanced.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 08, 2016, 11:46:47 AM

Quote from: general_lee on April 07, 2016, 12:13:41 PM
Destroying a bunch of cells is not killing someone. Even in this case, at 12 weeks, it is not killing someone. No person was killed.

I have never got a good scientific answer to when a bunch of cells becomes a person.  That has always made me uncomfortable about abortion.  At 12 weeks that bunch of cells has many "person" functions:

http://www.babycentre.co.uk/12-weeks-pregnant (http://www.babycentre.co.uk/12-weeks-pregnant)

And certainly if I read Ms Mullaly's article below about bodily autonomy it would appear that you are not a person until born if mother's bodily autonomy is sacrosanct.  So a baby seconds from birth is less a person than a baby just born?

Equally I have a distaste for pro-lifers disdain for complicated situations like FFA, rape, incest cases etc..

One thing I do believe is that anyone bearing absolute views on this matter and that are not conflicted have serious issues.

/Jim.

At 12 weeks there is no consciousness. Personall speaking, that is enough for me.

Its a difficult topic, and so I suspect we'll all look elsewhere for guidance on it. When abortion is legalised, we'll be happy enough and decide that, 'well, if the law says its not a life, its not a life', because it will be easier for us. I will anyway I'd say.

Just to note, Jim believes its distasteful of pro-lifers to have disdain in relation to ffa, rape, incest...but what other position could they have? If you believe there is a life there, which pro lifers do, then its entirely consistent to not allow in those instances, otherwise you're saying its ok to punish a child for the crime of its father, in a rape case for instance, or for being disabled in a ffa case.

I'm not saying those are my views, I'm just pointing out that the contradiction is much greater for people like Jim, who are probably most of us, when we are unsure about when life should be deemed to start, but regardless of this believe abortion should be allowed in those cases, than it is for pro-lifers who are against for any reason.

Quote from: general_lee on April 08, 2016, 12:24:23 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 08, 2016, 11:23:51 AM
Nothing like well a well unbalanced article.
One week it is all about how men died so that we can have different laws from the British and the next week there is a campaign to have them the same because the British don't agree. The Irish Times hasn't changed its role much in 100 years.

A fairly well penned article; because it doesn't fall in line with your opinion doesn't make it unbalanced.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 08, 2016, 11:46:47 AM

Quote from: general_lee on April 07, 2016, 12:13:41 PM
Destroying a bunch of cells is not killing someone. Even in this case, at 12 weeks, it is not killing someone. No person was killed.

I have never got a good scientific answer to when a bunch of cells becomes a person.  That has always made me uncomfortable about abortion.  At 12 weeks that bunch of cells has many "person" functions:

http://www.babycentre.co.uk/12-weeks-pregnant (http://www.babycentre.co.uk/12-weeks-pregnant)

And certainly if I read Ms Mullaly's article below about bodily autonomy it would appear that you are not a person until born if mother's bodily autonomy is sacrosanct.  So a baby seconds from birth is less a person than a baby just born?

Equally I have a distaste for pro-lifers disdain for complicated situations like FFA, rape, incest cases etc..

One thing I do believe is that anyone bearing absolute views on this matter and that are not conflicted have serious issues.

/Jim.

At 12 weeks there is no consciousness. Personall speaking, that is enough for me.

Have you ever been at a 12 week ultrasound scan ?
You can hear the heartbeat.
That's enough for me to say them 'bunch of cells" is human life.

Quote from: general_lee on April 08, 2016, 12:24:23 PM
At 12 weeks there is no consciousness. Personally speaking, that is enough for me.

My understanding is that due to low-oxygen state in womb means babies are permanently in a state of sleep, "unconscious" if you will.  So for you is there a recognised milestone where consciousness is regarded as present?

The reason I ask is that  if such a milestone does not exist then it would default to birth?

This must be counter-balanced with the fact that premature babies show that as early as 21 weeks the unconscious is capable of consciousness post-delivery.

The caring system in UK allows abortions up to 24 week (reduced from 28 weeks in 1990)

Is that enough for you?

I can't agree with article posted because the phrase "bodily autonomy" because to me that implies everything up to birth is fair game.

/Jim.

Quote from: haranguerer on April 08, 2016, 01:05:03 PM
Just to note, Jim believes its distasteful of pro-lifers to have disdain in relation to ffa, rape, incest...but what other position could they have? If you believe there is a life there, which pro lifers do, then its entirely consistent to not allow in those instances, otherwise you're saying its ok to punish a child for the crime of its father, in a rape case for instance, or for being disabled in a ffa case.

I think to be so absolute is wrong but I accept that likely is coming from my point of view of being conflicted.  Also for FFA I mean when it is evident that life is not sustainable.   I don't mean "disabled":  I have a child with down syndrome and special needs so I would have strong views on that aspect.  However take the case that this thread started on: if my wife was ill and on her way to a miscarriage.  I would have no moral calms about surgical intervention to speed things up. I would not be waiting for "no heart beat". 

I think the lines are grey and blurred, that is why I don't believe in absolutism here.

/Jim. 

Quote from: laoislad on April 08, 2016, 01:15:24 PM

Quote from: general_lee on April 08, 2016, 12:24:23 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on April 08, 2016, 11:23:51 AM
Nothing like well a well unbalanced article.
One week it is all about how men died so that we can have different laws from the British and the next week there is a campaign to have them the same because the British don't agree. The Irish Times hasn't changed its role much in 100 years.

A fairly well penned article; because it doesn't fall in line with your opinion doesn't make it unbalanced.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 08, 2016, 11:46:47 AM

Quote from: general_lee on April 07, 2016, 12:13:41 PM
Destroying a bunch of cells is not killing someone. Even in this case, at 12 weeks, it is not killing someone. No person was killed.

I have never got a good scientific answer to when a bunch of cells becomes a person.  That has always made me uncomfortable about abortion.  At 12 weeks that bunch of cells has many "person" functions:

http://www.babycentre.co.uk/12-weeks-pregnant (http://www.babycentre.co.uk/12-weeks-pregnant)

And certainly if I read Ms Mullaly's article below about bodily autonomy it would appear that you are not a person until born if mother's bodily autonomy is sacrosanct.  So a baby seconds from birth is less a person than a baby just born?

Equally I have a distaste for pro-lifers disdain for complicated situations like FFA, rape, incest cases etc..

One thing I do believe is that anyone bearing absolute views on this matter and that are not conflicted have serious issues.

/Jim.

At 12 weeks there is no consciousness. Personall speaking, that is enough for me.

Have you ever been at a 12 week ultrasound scan ?
You can hear the heartbeat.
That's enough for me to say them 'bunch of cells" is human life.

I completely respect that. If my partner, sister, cousin, friend or anyone else I knew wanted an abortion at that stage; I think they have the right to choose what they do from there. That should not be a decision for the state to impose on their behalf.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on April 08, 2016, 01:24:28 PM

Quote from: general_lee on April 08, 2016, 12:24:23 PM
At 12 weeks there is no consciousness. Personally speaking, that is enough for me.

So for you is there a recognised milestone where consciousness is regarded as present?

The reason I ask is that  if such a milestone does not exist then it would default to birth?

This must be counter-balanced with the fact that premature babies show that as early as 21 weeks the unconscious is capable of consciousness post-delivery.

The caring system in UK allows abortions up to 24 week (reduced from 28 weeks in 1990)

Is that enough for you?

As you well know, it's aribtrary. As such it's almost pointless engaging in a debate about any supposed "milestone" where a foetus "acquires" the right to life.

Surely by now we have the technology to safely remove a child from a mother who doesn't want it, and place it for the remainder of its term inside a willing pro-life campaigner?

Like an Archbishop???

If 5000 women every year from Ireland have an abortion outside tge state there is obviously a problem that is not being addressed. And pretending the status quo works is delusional.

Quote from: general_lee on April 08, 2016, 02:04:20 PM
As you well know, it's aribtrary. As such it's almost pointless engaging in a debate about any supposed "milestone" where a foetus "acquires" the right to life.

It maybe be almost pointless but having the right to life is something very fundamental. It perplexes me for that reason.

/Jim.

Society is weird . 20 year old men are allowed drive cars and thinki nothing or doing so while drunk.  Cheap Alcohol is
is freely available. A lot of food is poisoned with sugar and salt. Smoking is taxed for the benefit of society even though it results in almost certain early death.  The environment is collapsing. and we lecture women about the sanctity of life.

Smokers injure their own life, now that they are largely prevented from smoking in the presence of normal people.

Quote from: seafoid on April 08, 2016, 06:06:58 PM
Society is weird . 20 year old men are allowed drive cars and thinki nothing or doing so while drunk.  Cheap Alcohol is
is freely available. A lot of food is poisoned with sugar and salt. Smoking is taxed for the benefit of society even though it results in almost certain early death.  The environment is collapsing. and we lecture women about the sanctity of life.

The rest of your false analogies aside I am always perplexed and amused as to how you try and relate point you are trying to make to this.

Interesting that this has gone down the "consciousness" / "bunch of cells"  route. Myself and Eamon had a brief discussion on the Death thread about this.

As Eamon pointed out we are all just a bunch of cells, and ultimately atoms, so if you adhere to the materialist school of thought, which is prevailing feeling among the scientific community, then the only logical conclusion is that consciousness is merely an illusion and therefore not real. So in the context of this discussion if that's your position consciousness should be irrelevant to your reasoning.

However it seems that for consciousness to be "real"  the only way we could rationalise is that we are made up something else besides the cells/atoms/quarks/matter. The only time that something else could be added to the bunch of cells in the womb is at the moment of conception, there is nothing to suggest otherwise. Unless you want to open the door onto when that bunch of cells becomes self aware, which is sometime in the first year post partum I would imagine, or perhaps forms permanent memories, which would be sometime in the second year.

Quote from: Windmill abu on February 12, 2016, 12:57:14 AM
For all the pro choice and pro abortion posters on here, I would be interested in your opinions regarding the rights of the life growing inside the mother.

None of you seem to give any consideration to this life.

In the case of rape, why would killing the child be an acceptable reason to end a healthy life?

I am not pro abortion, but words like "killing the child" are inaccurate and unhelpful. I don't believe that a child conceived in most circumstances should not be removed as an inconvenience. I do however believe that victims of rape or where the life of a woman is at risk or where the child will not survive should be afforded the choice. There are enough forms of contraception available today that outside of rape conception should always be planned. That said I have sympathy for and wouldn't judge women who choose abortion because they can't see any other option. The support is not there in many cases to help women in desperate circumstances and I don't believe we can judge. All the emotive language and pressure being piled on by the likes of Bernie Smyth and the pro life brigade actually is counter productive and certainly not in keeping with the Christianity they profess. In relation to the young woman prosecuted recently, it is shameful that she was prosecuted when she obviously was in a distressful situation and as for those calling for jail time well...

What I am trying to articulate is that those are my personal views and I should force them on others.

Quote from: omaghjoe on April 09, 2016, 07:52:39 AM
Interesting that this has gone down the "consciousness" / "bunch of cells"  route. Myself and Eamon had a brief discussion on the Death thread about this.

As Eamon pointed out we are all just a bunch of cells, and ultimately atoms, so if you adhere to the materialist school of thought, which is prevailing feeling among the scientific community, then the only logical conclusion is that consciousness is merely an illusion and therefore not real. So in the context of this discussion if that's your position consciousness should be irrelevant to your reasoning.

However it seems that for consciousness to be "real"  the only way we could rationalise is that we are made up something else besides the cells/atoms/quarks/matter. The only time that something else could be added to the bunch of cells in the womb is at the moment of conception, there is nothing to suggest otherwise. Unless you want to open the door onto when that bunch of cells becomes self aware, which is sometime in the first year post partum I would imagine, or perhaps forms permanent memories, which would be sometime in the second year.

Consciousness is scientifically defined, even if we don't know that much about it, but it is certainly real. For example, see the medical definition of unconscious for evidence of that: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unconsciousness (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unconsciousness)

Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2016, 09:36:59 AM
Consciousness is scientifically defined, even if we don't know that much about it, but it is certainly real. For example, see the medical definition of unconscious for evidence of that: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unconsciousness (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unconsciousness)

So if I become unconscious, is it OK to kill me?

Quote from: omaghjoe on April 09, 2016, 07:22:53 AM

Quote from: seafoid on April 08, 2016, 06:06:58 PM
Society is weird . 20 year old men are allowed drive cars and thinki nothing or doing so while drunk.  Cheap Alcohol is
is freely available. A lot of food is poisoned with sugar and salt. Smoking is taxed for the benefit of society even though it results in almost certain early death.  The environment is collapsing. and we lecture women about the sanctity of life.

The rest of your false analogies aside I am always perplexed and amused as to how you try and relate point you are trying to make to this.

Climate change already costs the US economy 2% of gdp per annum

Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2016, 09:36:59 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on April 09, 2016, 07:52:39 AM
Interesting that this has gone down the "consciousness" / "bunch of cells"  route. Myself and Eamon had a brief discussion on the Death thread about this.

As Eamon pointed out we are all just a bunch of cells, and ultimately atoms, so if you adhere to the materialist school of thought, which is prevailing feeling among the scientific community, then the only logical conclusion is that consciousness is merely an illusion and therefore not real. So in the context of this discussion if that's your position consciousness should be irrelevant to your reasoning.

However it seems that for consciousness to be "real"  the only way we could rationalise is that we are made up something else besides the cells/atoms/quarks/matter. The only time that something else could be added to the bunch of cells in the womb is at the moment of conception, there is nothing to suggest otherwise. Unless you want to open the door onto when that bunch of cells becomes self aware, which is sometime in the first year post partum I would imagine, or perhaps forms permanent memories, which would be sometime in the second year.

Consciousness is scientifically defined, even if we don't know that much about it, but it is certainly real. For example, see the medical definition of unconscious for evidence of that: http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unconsciousness (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/unconsciousness)

Consciousness is defined, although not really scientifically, if it did, like all other matter it should fit into the standard model, but it doesn't. Its the experience of knowing that you exist and your environment exists, science uses the experience within it to tell us about the world, but it has no clue what it is, in fact its a kind of a circular reasoning for science to try and define it when you think about it.
The materialist and naturalist school of thought would say its just an illusion of natural processes taking place, similar to the free will illusion.
Medical definition of consciousness is only a measurement of degree of consciousness, a measurement of selected symptoms of consciousness that we all know we experience when conscious, however thats as far as it goes, neurology for example goes all little deeper but really it is no closer to it defining it, even those in a coma have a degree of consciousness as they are often still a having experience within it.
 

Quote from: seafoid on April 09, 2016, 04:37:41 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on April 09, 2016, 07:22:53 AM

Quote from: seafoid on April 08, 2016, 06:06:58 PM
Society is weird . 20 year old men are allowed drive cars and thinki nothing or doing so while drunk.  Cheap Alcohol is
is freely available. A lot of food is poisoned with sugar and salt. Smoking is taxed for the benefit of society even though it results in almost certain early death.  The environment is collapsing. and we lecture women about the sanctity of life.

The rest of your false analogies aside I am always perplexed and amused as to how you try and relate point you are trying to make to this.

Climate change already costs the US economy 2% of gdp per annum

I am all ears how thats relevant

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/i-wont-engage-in-any-debate-against-my-own-party-martin-says-abortion-stance-not-a-party-political-issue-36506717.html

The Fianna Fail leader also said that Eighth Amendment does not prevent Irish women from having abortion.

"Nobody can dispute the fact that thousands of Irish women have an abortion every year", he told the Dail.

He said these operations caused "deep trauma" and were "hidden" and could therefore have a significant impact on health and well-being on women.

The Cork South Central TD admitted that up until now he has been on record as being against abortion but his position has since evolved.

"Over the years I have been on the record as being against a significant change in our abortion laws.  I have done so from a belief that this was the most effective way of affirming the importance of the unborn" , he told the Dail.

But "if the facts become clearer, if we come to understand properly the impact of a policy on others, then we must be willing to act accordingly", he said.

Mr Martin said the reality of the situation is that "the Eighth Amendment does not mean that Ireland is a country without abortion."

"Retaining the Eighth Amendment will not make Ireland a country without abortion."

"Nothing we say or do here could make Ireland a country without abortion."

The Fianna Fail leader said "without constitutional change" it is not possible to address the trauma faced by families who receive a fatal fetal abnormality diagnosis.

"If a family is told of a fatal abnormality during a pregnancy the law, as it stands and as it is required to be under the Eighth amendment, says that they can do nothing" he said.

"Under threat of a criminal sentence they must carry the pregnancy to its term irrespective of the potentially devastating impact it will have", he said.

"I believe we should make provision for cases of fatal foetal abnormality and serious threats to the health of the mother."

Most children diagnosed with these abnormalities live beyond birth. Some for months.  However short that life is they deserve it as much as me and you.
It's not up to us to decide who lives or dies. I challenge anyone who believes otherwise to watch a video of an abortion taking place and listen to testimonies from nurses and doctors who worked in abortion clinics and performed abortions themselves about what really happens....

And when the mother's life is in danger?

These are rare cases J70. I think on the last count they make up 3% of abortions whereas over 90% are for social reasons - just a delayed contraceptive....
In these instances you have to consider both lives and a doctor faced with one of these rare cases should do all they can to preserve the life of the mother and the child where possible. The family and the doctor would have to work together to determine the outcomes of any treatments required to save the mother, what her chances of survival were versus that of the child and make a decision in good conscience.  If their intent is to save the mother and there is a chance to do so and the death of the baby is a byproduct - not an intent - then regrettably I would accept that with a heavy heart.

But you can't take rare cases and use that to open the door for social abortion. It's not how life works.

Quote from: The Iceman on January 19, 2018, 01:10:04 PM
Most children diagnosed with these abnormalities live beyond birth. Some for months.  However short that life is they deserve it as much as me and you.
It's not up to us to decide who lives or dies. I challenge anyone who believes otherwise to watch a video of an abortion taking place and listen to testimonies from nurses and doctors who worked in abortion clinics and performed abortions themselves about what really happens....

Why should anyone give a flying f**k what the doctor or nurse thinks? It's not their body.

Quote from: gallsman on January 19, 2018, 01:58:21 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on January 19, 2018, 01:10:04 PM
Most children diagnosed with these abnormalities live beyond birth. Some for months.  However short that life is they deserve it as much as me and you.
It's not up to us to decide who lives or dies. I challenge anyone who believes otherwise to watch a video of an abortion taking place and listen to testimonies from nurses and doctors who worked in abortion clinics and performed abortions themselves about what really happens....

Why should anyone give a flying f**k what the doctor or nurse thinks? It's not their body.

Would you intervene if you saw a woman self-harming or about to jump from a bridge?

Iceman, I would be personally against abortion myself and agree pretty much with what you've written.

It's a difficult issue though. Where do you draw the line with respect to the health of the mother? Should a woman be forced to carry a rapist's child to term? I don't see how I or anyone else has the right to make that demand, regardless of the fact that the life of an unborn baby is on the line.

And it's an issue Ireland has not had to properly reckon with until now due to the relief valve provided by England. As horrific as I now find the idea of abortion, I was happy enough in my teen and early-20s relationships when one or two girlfriends told me I'd never know if they got pregnant, because she'd be off to England and back without my ever knowing about it. And to this day, I've no issue with the morning after pill, which I understand might not be the case for a devout catholic as yourself.

Quote from: AQMP on January 19, 2018, 02:00:00 PM

Quote from: gallsman on January 19, 2018, 01:58:21 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on January 19, 2018, 01:10:04 PM
Most children diagnosed with these abnormalities live beyond birth. Some for months.  However short that life is they deserve it as much as me and you.
It's not up to us to decide who lives or dies. I challenge anyone who believes otherwise to watch a video of an abortion taking place and listen to testimonies from nurses and doctors who worked in abortion clinics and performed abortions themselves about what really happens....

Why should anyone give a flying f**k what the doctor or nurse thinks? It's not their body.

Would you intervene if you saw a woman self-harming or about to jump from a bridge?

If you have one, what's your point?

Quote from: gallsman on January 19, 2018, 02:16:37 PM

Quote from: AQMP on January 19, 2018, 02:00:00 PM

Quote from: gallsman on January 19, 2018, 01:58:21 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on January 19, 2018, 01:10:04 PM
Most children diagnosed with these abnormalities live beyond birth. Some for months.  However short that life is they deserve it as much as me and you.
It's not up to us to decide who lives or dies. I challenge anyone who believes otherwise to watch a video of an abortion taking place and listen to testimonies from nurses and doctors who worked in abortion clinics and performed abortions themselves about what really happens....

Why should anyone give a flying f**k what the doctor or nurse thinks? It's not their body.

Would you intervene if you saw a woman self-harming or about to jump from a bridge?

If you have one, what's your point?

Tis a simple question.

Quote from: J70 on January 19, 2018, 02:05:22 PM
Iceman, I would be personally against abortion myself and agree pretty much with what you've written.

It's a difficult issue though. Where do you draw the line with respect to the health of the mother? Should a woman be forced to carry a rapist's child to term? I don't see how I or anyone else has the right to make that demand, regardless of the fact that the life of an unborn baby is on the line.

And it's an issue Ireland has not had to properly reckon with until now due to the relief valve provided by England. As horrific as I now find the idea of abortion, I was happy enough in my teen and early-20s relationships when one or two girlfriends told me I'd never know if they got pregnant, because she'd be off to England and back without my ever knowing about it. And to this day, I've no issue with the morning after pill, which I understand might not be the case for a devout catholic as yourself.

I think its about changing the narrative J70. Forcing a woman....I think with proper counseling and support a woman can carry a baby full term and we would gladly take the child and there's many more who would too.  I have a friend who went on a mission trip to Africa. She was raped by a local man and came home devastated. She decided to put the baby up for adoption.  Having a black child in Belfast 10 years ago for a single woman as a result of rape...but to her credit on seeing the baby she kept her. A lovely girl and relationship they have now too. All the instances don't finish so well but they all start the same. Some light and some goodness can come out of every situation.

Abortion is nesscary. Whether you disagree what the limits of it should be, it simply is.

There's too many edge cases to say it shouldn't happen at all. The suggestion above that a woman should be forced to bring a baby stemming from rape to term is genuinely disgusting. It's entirely a matter of personal choice - if the person wants to, there should be supports but no one should judge a woman who chooses a different path. Anecdotal cases as evidence is such a logical fallacy it's hard to see how it could be used to contribute to a wider legislation debate. That is position zero for discussion on abortion as far as I'm concerned.

I have huge respect for Michael Martin coming out and stating his personal position even if it is somewhat politically controversial.

Quote from: Syferus on January 19, 2018, 02:50:31 PM
Abortion is nesscary. Whether you disagree what the limits of it should be, it simply is.

There's too many edge cases to say it shouldn't happen at all. The suggestion above that a woman should be forced to bring a baby stemming from rape to term is genuinely disgusting. It's entirely a matter of personal choice - if the person wants to, there should be supports but no one should judge a woman who chooses a different path. Anecdotal cases as evidence is such a logical fallacy it's hard to see how it could be used to contribute to a wider legislation debate. That is position zero for discussion on abortion as far as I'm concerned.

I have huge respect for Michael Martin coming out and stating his personal position even if it is somewhat politically controversial.

After Repeal of the 8th, a woman presents at clinic saying she's pregnant and would like an abortion because she was raped.  Is that enough for an abortion to be carried out?

Quote from: AQMP on January 19, 2018, 03:07:09 PM

Quote from: Syferus on January 19, 2018, 02:50:31 PM
Abortion is nesscary. Whether you disagree what the limits of it should be, it simply is.

There's too many edge cases to say it shouldn't happen at all. The suggestion above that a woman should be forced to bring a baby stemming from rape to term is genuinely disgusting. It's entirely a matter of personal choice - if the person wants to, there should be supports but no one should judge a woman who chooses a different path. Anecdotal cases as evidence is such a logical fallacy it's hard to see how it could be used to contribute to a wider legislation debate. That is position zero for discussion on abortion as far as I'm concerned.

I have huge respect for Michael Martin coming out and stating his personal position even if it is somewhat politically controversial.

After Repeal of the 8th, a woman presents at clinic saying she's pregnant and would like an abortion because she was raped.  Is that enough for an abortion to be carried out?

As it stands why would she say she was raped? The recommendations as they stand mean you can get an abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks.

You invented a strawman just to knock over there.

Quote from: Syferus on January 19, 2018, 03:11:18 PM

Quote from: AQMP on January 19, 2018, 03:07:09 PM

Quote from: Syferus on January 19, 2018, 02:50:31 PM
Abortion is nesscary. Whether you disagree what the limits of it should be, it simply is.

There's too many edge cases to say it shouldn't happen at all. The suggestion above that a woman should be forced to bring a baby stemming from rape to term is genuinely disgusting. It's entirely a matter of personal choice - if the person wants to, there should be supports but no one should judge a woman who chooses a different path. Anecdotal cases as evidence is such a logical fallacy it's hard to see how it could be used to contribute to a wider legislation debate. That is position zero for discussion on abortion as far as I'm concerned.

I have huge respect for Michael Martin coming out and stating his personal position even if it is somewhat politically controversial.

After Repeal of the 8th, a woman presents at clinic saying she's pregnant and would like an abortion because she was raped.  Is that enough for an abortion to be carried out?

As it stands why would she say she was raped? The recommendations as they stand mean you can get an abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks.

You invented a strawman just to knock over there.

Point taken, I'm obviously not an expert on proposed legislation.  Genuine question...will there be scope for termination after 12 weeks or is it anything up to 12 weeks and nothing thereafter?

There is no proposed legislation just recommendations from a Dàil Committee.
Government has to decide firstly what they will put to the people - a proposal to simply delete Art 40/3/3 or some replacement Sub article.
If the former and it's passed then Government can legislate for whatever the Dàil passes.

Is Micky Martin expressing a deeply held personal view or has he read the tea leaves and wants FF on the popular side? Or just after the suburban middle class vote?
Poor Eugene Murphy not impressed anyway.

Quote from: The Iceman on January 19, 2018, 02:29:50 PM

Quote from: J70 on January 19, 2018, 02:05:22 PM
Iceman, I would be personally against abortion myself and agree pretty much with what you've written.

It's a difficult issue though. Where do you draw the line with respect to the health of the mother? Should a woman be forced to carry a rapist's child to term? I don't see how I or anyone else has the right to make that demand, regardless of the fact that the life of an unborn baby is on the line.

And it's an issue Ireland has not had to properly reckon with until now due to the relief valve provided by England. As horrific as I now find the idea of abortion, I was happy enough in my teen and early-20s relationships when one or two girlfriends told me I'd never know if they got pregnant, because she'd be off to England and back without my ever knowing about it. And to this day, I've no issue with the morning after pill, which I understand might not be the case for a devout catholic as yourself.

I think its about changing the narrative J70. Forcing a woman....I think with proper counseling and support a woman can carry a baby full term and we would gladly take the child and there's many more who would too.  I have a friend who went on a mission trip to Africa. She was raped by a local man and came home devastated. She decided to put the baby up for adoption.  Having a black child in Belfast 10 years ago for a single woman as a result of rape...but to her credit on seeing the baby she kept her. A lovely girl and relationship they have now too. All the instances don't finish so well but they all start the same. Some light and some goodness can come out of every situation.

I think  ::) 

Quote from: Syferus on January 19, 2018, 02:50:31 PM
Abortion is nesscary. Whether you disagree what the limits of it should be, it simply is.

There's too many edge cases to say it shouldn't happen at all. The suggestion above that a woman should be forced to bring a baby stemming from rape to term is genuinely disgusting. It's entirely a matter of personal choice - if the person wants to, there should be supports but no one should judge a woman who chooses a different path. Anecdotal cases as evidence is such a logical fallacy it's hard to see how it could be used to contribute to a wider legislation debate. That is position zero for discussion on abortion as far as I'm concerned.

I have huge respect for Michael Martin coming out and stating his personal position even if it is somewhat politically controversial.

I agree

Article 8 didn't work. There were some unnecessary deaths.
The worst case was the dead woman whose organs were kept going .
Women want change.
Article 8 was voted on the year before Joanne Hayes was accused of murder. Not long before Ann Lovett died.

On a point if order it's Article 40/3/3.
It was the 8th amendment to Bunreacht na hÉireann.

Quote from: Rossfan on January 19, 2018, 03:43:30 PM
There is no proposed legislation just recommendations from a Dàil Committee.
Government has to decide firstly what they will put to the people - a proposal to simply delete Art 40/3/3 or some replacement Sub article.
If the former and it's passed then Government can legislate for whatever the Dàil passes.

Is Micky Martin expressing a deeply held personal view or has he read the tea leaves and wants FF on the popular side? Or just after the suburban middle class vote?
Poor Eugene Murphy not impressed anyway.

Abortion is a personal decision rather than a political one. So far the approach by the two major parties has been pretty mature and level-headed, leaving TDs to decide what they support and being freely able to campaign for their desired outcome. Whatever side wins it will hurt people politically as much as it will help them.

Quote from: AQMP on January 19, 2018, 02:23:09 PM

Quote from: gallsman on January 19, 2018, 02:16:37 PM

Quote from: AQMP on January 19, 2018, 02:00:00 PM

Quote from: gallsman on January 19, 2018, 01:58:21 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on January 19, 2018, 01:10:04 PM
Most children diagnosed with these abnormalities live beyond birth. Some for months.  However short that life is they deserve it as much as me and you.
It's not up to us to decide who lives or dies. I challenge anyone who believes otherwise to watch a video of an abortion taking place and listen to testimonies from nurses and doctors who worked in abortion clinics and performed abortions themselves about what really happens....

Why should anyone give a flying f**k what the doctor or nurse thinks? It's not their body.

Would you intervene if you saw a woman self-harming or about to jump from a bridge?

If you have one, what's your point?

Tis a simple question.

It is, but one that bears zero relevance to the topic at hand, so I'll refrain from bothering to answer it, although the answer should be obvious.

Quote from: The Iceman on January 19, 2018, 02:29:50 PM
I think its about changing the narrative J70. Forcing a woman....I think with proper counseling and support a woman can carry a baby full term and we would gladly take the child and there's many more who would too.  I have a friend who went on a mission trip to Africa. She was raped by a local man and came home devastated. She decided to put the baby up for adoption.  Having a black child in Belfast 10 years ago for a single woman as a result of rape...but to her credit on seeing the baby she kept her. A lovely girl and relationship they have now too. All the instances don't finish so well but they all start the same. Some light and some goodness can come out of every situation.

The narrative?! Are you f**king kidding?! Someone not wanting to carry a rapist's but having to by law is "a narrative"?

Congrats to your friend, that's great for her. If Mary from Dublin is raped and becomes pregnant as a result, it is none of your f**king business whatsoever to be saying she should carry to term because there's counseling to get her through it.

Quote from: gallsman on January 19, 2018, 04:52:16 PM

Quote from: AQMP on January 19, 2018, 02:23:09 PM

Quote from: gallsman on January 19, 2018, 02:16:37 PM

Quote from: AQMP on January 19, 2018, 02:00:00 PM

Quote from: gallsman on January 19, 2018, 01:58:21 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on January 19, 2018, 01:10:04 PM
Most children diagnosed with these abnormalities live beyond birth. Some for months.  However short that life is they deserve it as much as me and you.
It's not up to us to decide who lives or dies. I challenge anyone who believes otherwise to watch a video of an abortion taking place and listen to testimonies from nurses and doctors who worked in abortion clinics and performed abortions themselves about what really happens....

Why should anyone give a flying f**k what the doctor or nurse thinks? It's not their body.

Would you intervene if you saw a woman self-harming or about to jump from a bridge?

If you have one, what's your point?

Tis a simple question.

It is, but one that bears zero relevance to the topic at hand, so I'll refrain from bothering to answer it, although the answer should be obvious.

The point is that in those cases we would intervene and wouldn't put forward the position that it's a woman's body and she can do whatever she likes to it. 

So I'm just saying that the argument that a woman's (or man's) right to do whatever she likes to her body (or variations thereof) is not absolute.  There are societal restrictions.

What an incredibly strange equivalence to draw.

Quote from: Syferus on January 19, 2018, 05:11:15 PM
What an incredibly strange equivalence to draw.

Maybe, if it were an equivalence.

Quote from: AQMP on January 19, 2018, 05:05:36 PM

Quote from: gallsman on January 19, 2018, 04:52:16 PM

Quote from: AQMP on January 19, 2018, 02:23:09 PM

Quote from: gallsman on January 19, 2018, 02:16:37 PM

Quote from: AQMP on January 19, 2018, 02:00:00 PM

Quote from: gallsman on January 19, 2018, 01:58:21 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on January 19, 2018, 01:10:04 PM
Most children diagnosed with these abnormalities live beyond birth. Some for months.  However short that life is they deserve it as much as me and you.
It's not up to us to decide who lives or dies. I challenge anyone who believes otherwise to watch a video of an abortion taking place and listen to testimonies from nurses and doctors who worked in abortion clinics and performed abortions themselves about what really happens....

Why should anyone give a flying f**k what the doctor or nurse thinks? It's not their body.

Would you intervene if you saw a woman self-harming or about to jump from a bridge?

If you have one, what's your point?

Tis a simple question.

It is, but one that bears zero relevance to the topic at hand, so I'll refrain from bothering to answer it, although the answer should be obvious.

The point is that in those cases we would intervene and wouldn't put forward the position that it's a woman's body and she can do whatever she likes to it. 

So I'm just saying that the argument that a woman's (or man's) right to do whatever she likes to her body (or variations thereof) is not absolute.  There are societal restrictions.

Point out the bit where I said she could do whatever she likes to her own body.

I presume you're trying to play some sort of devil's advocate here, but you're making a right mess of it.

Quote from: gallsman on January 19, 2018, 04:56:25 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on January 19, 2018, 02:29:50 PM
I think its about changing the narrative J70. Forcing a woman....I think with proper counseling and support a woman can carry a baby full term and we would gladly take the child and there's many more who would too.  I have a friend who went on a mission trip to Africa. She was raped by a local man and came home devastated. She decided to put the baby up for adoption.  Having a black child in Belfast 10 years ago for a single woman as a result of rape...but to her credit on seeing the baby she kept her. A lovely girl and relationship they have now too. All the instances don't finish so well but they all start the same. Some light and some goodness can come out of every situation.

The narrative?! Are you f**king kidding?! Someone not wanting to carry a rapist's but having to by law is "a narrative"?

Congrats to your friend, that's great for her. If Mary from Dublin is raped and becomes pregnant as a result, it is none of your f**king business whatsoever to be saying she should carry to term because there's counseling to get her through it.

Are you angry all the time gallsman or just with me. I wasn't commenting about the law specifically  - I was having a respectful discussion with J70 and sharing some personal opinions. Your whole its none of anyone's business its her body stance is very childish...
A decision to kill the baby in her womb isn't a decision about her body - it's a decision about the babies life.  And who are you to interfere either? You're not a woman so if I can't speak for one neither can you....so slither on
A mothers right as a person do not rank higher than my rights or yours or the baby in her wombs rights to life.
The mother can dye her hair purple, never brush her teeth or put makeup on - thats up to her and I'd never tell her to do any different. But if someone wants to take a life then I will speak up.
If she doesn't brush her teeth she deals with the consequences. If she has sex she knows what will happen....93% of abortions are because 2 people had sex and couldn't be bothered...

Quote from: The Iceman on January 19, 2018, 08:19:19 PM

Quote from: gallsman on January 19, 2018, 04:56:25 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on January 19, 2018, 02:29:50 PM
I think its about changing the narrative J70. Forcing a woman....I think with proper counseling and support a woman can carry a baby full term and we would gladly take the child and there's many more who would too.  I have a friend who went on a mission trip to Africa. She was raped by a local man and came home devastated. She decided to put the baby up for adoption.  Having a black child in Belfast 10 years ago for a single woman as a result of rape...but to her credit on seeing the baby she kept her. A lovely girl and relationship they have now too. All the instances don't finish so well but they all start the same. Some light and some goodness can come out of every situation.

The narrative?! Are you f**king kidding?! Someone not wanting to carry a rapist's but having to by law is "a narrative"?

Congrats to your friend, that's great for her. If Mary from Dublin is raped and becomes pregnant as a result, it is none of your f**king business whatsoever to be saying she should carry to term because there's counseling to get her through it.

Are you angry all the time gallsman or just with me. I wasn't commenting about the law specifically  - I was having a respectful discussion with J70 and sharing some personal opinions. Your whole its none of anyone's business its her body stance is very childish...
A decision to kill the baby in her womb isn't a decision about her body - it's a decision about the babies life.  And who are you to interfere either? You're not a woman so if I can't speak for one neither can you....so slither on
A mothers right as a person do not rank higher than my rights or yours or the baby in her wombs rights to life.
The mother can dye her hair purple, never brush her teeth or put makeup on - thats up to her and I'd never tell her to do any different. But if someone wants to take a life then I will speak up.
If she doesn't brush her teeth she deals with the consequences. If she has sex she knows what will happen....93% of abortions are because 2 people had sex and couldn't be bothered...

Unless you plan on flying over for the vote you really don't have a voice on this one, though.

Ireland has chosen a path based on reality and compassion on social issues like gay marriage and I fully expect the 8th amendment to be repealed in a similarly forward-facing manner. What replaces it is the question.

Tell me more about this narrative. Whose narrative is it? The media's? Feminists'? Anti-Catholics?

QuoteA mothers right as a person do not rank higher than my rights or yours or the baby in her wombs rights to life.

We'll see about that in the long run. I'm sure if one of your kids is ever impregnated through rape, you'll be all moral about it and telling her about its rights and that she shouldn't think of an option such as abortion because she can chat to a counsellor who'll tell her it'll all be fine. After all, you know someone else this happened to, so why should it be different for anyone else?

Quote from: gallsman on January 19, 2018, 08:27:32 PM
Tell me more about this narrative. Whose narrative is it? The media's? Feminists'? Anti-Catholics?

QuoteA mothers right as a person do not rank higher than my rights or yours or the baby in her wombs rights to life.

We'll see about that in the long run. I'm sure if one of your kids is ever impregnated through rape, you'll be all moral about it and telling her about its rights and that she shouldn't think of an option such as abortion because she can chat to a counsellor who'll tell her it'll all be fine. After all, you know someone else this happened to, so why should it be different for anyone else?

It's all about your response isn't it? Life isn't about what happens to us but how we respond.  Luckily this young girl was responded to with love and affection and hope - some things you seem incapable of. I'm growing tired of your vendetta  - at least have the balls to explain it - I've offered you the opportunity to message me many times and you haven't

There it is, to disagree with your arch conservative, chauvinistic, discussing views is to "have a vendetta". "Life isn't what happens to us but how we respond"?? What bullshit Christianity by numbers self help book did you pull that from. Take that attitude to a hundred rape victims and see how long you last before they pull you limb from limb. Don't worry about the fact you were raped poor girl, you have the chance to respond to this really well and become a better person! The sheer f**king arrogance of you is breathtaking.

And finally, will you please at least explain what this "narrative" you claim is at play here.

Quote from: gallsman on January 19, 2018, 09:16:33 PM
There it is, to disagree with your arch conservative, chauvinistic, discussing views is to "have a vendetta". "Life isn't what happens to us but how we respond"?? What bullshit Christianity by numbers self help book did you pull that from. Take that attitude to a hundred rape victims and see how long you last before they pull you limb from limb. Don't worry about the fact you were raped poor girl, you have the chance to respond to this really well and become a better person! The sheer f**king arrogance of you is breathtaking.

And finally, will you please at least explain what this "narrative" you claim is at play here.

the narrative was the language j70 used "force a woman" I said you could change that narrative that language and make it something different - along the lines of how we respond to things....just like you are now...you may not like my posts - many don't...but your response is always one of anger, disdain and insult and others choose to be respectful and disagree without insult or anger

See you think you're being respectful but you're actually a condescending, patronising, arrogant gobshite who thinks his views and morals should matter more than what's going on in someone's life. Shove your holier than thou attitude up your hypocritical arse.

Thankfully the world is moving on and the likes of you and Fearon and your oppressive, intrusive views are increasingly in the minority. The eighth amendment will be repealed and there won't be a thing you can do about it.

Quote from: gallsman on January 19, 2018, 09:45:08 PM
See you think you're being respectful but you're actually a condescending, patronising, arrogant gobshite who thinks his views and morals should matter more than what's going on in someone's life. Shove your holier than thou attitude up your hypocritical arse.

Thankfully the world is moving on and the likes of you and Fearon and your oppressive, intrusive views are increasingly in the minority. The eighth amendment will be repealed and there won't be a thing you can do about it.

you see what you want to see gallsman...I don't need your respect, praise, admiration or otherwise.  I don't really give two flyers what you think about me.
Buenas Suerte

This thread fairly went downhill  :-\ :-\

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0129/936910-eighth-amendment-cabinet-referendum/

QuoteThe Cabinet has given formal approval to the holding of a referendum on the Eighth Amendment.

Speaking at a press conference following a special Cabinet meeting, Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said that the referendum will ask citizens whether they want to retain the Eighth Amendment of the constitution, or repeal it and replace it with an enabling provision that gives responsibility for legislating on abortion laws to the Dáil.

Minister for Health Simon Harris has also been given permission to draft a bill that will be introduced into the Oireachtas if the referendum is passed.

The Government will begin drafting legislation in line with recommendations made by the all-party Oireachtas committee last month, which said that the Eighth Amendment should be repealed.

It also proposed that terminations without restriction should be allowed for up to 12 weeks.

Mr Varadkar told the conference that the Cabinet approved a referendum at the end of May.

He said: "We have abortion in Ireland but it is unsafe, unregulated and unlawful, and in my opinion we cannot export our problems and import our solutions."

He said that he would support legislation to allow for a doctor-led service that would allow abortions in Ireland up to 12 weeks.

The whole thing is very complex from a moral stand point with lots of different scenarios that could sway you one way or the other. These scenarios will be the exception tho and on demand abortions will take up the vast majority of cases, so at the end of the day I think that's what ones decision would have to be based on.

I'm rather perplexed at the rationale being trotted out in favour of the 12weeks on demand.

Seems to amount to...

"well...., it is illegal but it happens anyway so we should legalize it"

The content of the thread above and the abuse Iceman received from the "pen" of Gallsman suggests this is going to be a very brutal campaign to listen to.

On a personally level I would be anti-abortion, just doesn't sit comfortable with me but I would be very much pro-choice.

Unfortunately on this issue I think common sense will not be in much use especially when Ireland's self appointed moral guardians The Iona Institute are on the case. Won't be fun at all.

#repealthe8th

Quote from: Rois on January 30, 2018, 07:40:23 AM
The content of the thread above and the abuse Iceman received from the "pen" of Gallsman suggests this is going to be a very brutal campaign to listen to.

It always is when religious zealots have to fight to cling onto outdated societal rules. It's a fight worth having.

Quote from: Dinny Breen on January 30, 2018, 10:43:37 AM
On a personally level I would be anti-abortion, just doesn't sit comfortable with me but I would be very much pro-choice.

That's my take on it as well.

I suppose the counter argument to that is murder in any form should be banned and that's very true and brings it right back to the most fundamental of questions of which there is no straightforward answer, when does life begin?

I don't know the answer to that and I suspect no one posting on here does with any certainty.

Quote from: Rois on January 30, 2018, 07:40:23 AM
The content of the thread above and the abuse Iceman received from the "pen" of Gallsman suggests this is going to be a very brutal campaign to listen to.

It's going to be absolutely horrible on both sides more than likely . . . I'm going to try and stay away from it.

A bit like Dinny it's far from a black and white issue as either side would have you believe.

It is much more nuanced than that but I think we need a pathway for abortion in certain circumstances. Unfortunately there will be very few arguments of reason or consideration of both sides respectfully!

Beat me to it johnney. I'm very much against abortion myself, but seeing as it's such a complicated issue I suppose there's more to it than pro or anti abortion.

Quote from: screenexile on January 30, 2018, 10:54:49 AM

Quote from: Rois on January 30, 2018, 07:40:23 AM
The content of the thread above and the abuse Iceman received from the "pen" of Gallsman suggests this is going to be a very brutal campaign to listen to.

It's going to be absolutely horrible on both sides more than likely . . . I'm going to try and stay away from it.

A bit like Dinny it's far from a black and white issue as either side would have you believe.

It is much more nuanced than that but I think we need a pathway for abortion in certain circumstances. Unfortunately there will be very few arguments of reason or consideration of both sides respectfully!

Well said and exactly how I feel.
Having abortion on demand just doesn't sit right with me but I do agree in certain circumstances it is necessary.
I'm on the fence right now about how I would vote.

Abortion on demand is such a pejorative description compared to giving a woman the right to choose. Always a red flag to me when I read so called impartial posts on the discussion.

Quote from: theskull1 on January 30, 2018, 11:40:41 AM
Abortion on demand is such a pejorative description compared to giving a woman the right to choose. Always a red flag to me when I read so called impartial posts on the discussion.

OK then, let's agree that the issue is a woman's right to choose abortion on demand.

Here we go.

Trying to keep away from this subject so 1st and last comment.
I won't be voting for the death penalty for babies who have committed no crime.

Quote from: Rossfan on January 30, 2018, 11:59:03 AM
Trying to keep away from this subject so 1st and last comment.
I won't be voting for the death penalty for babies who have committed no crime.

Exactly

Under certain circumstances it may seem appropriate, but murder is murder.

Quote from: Rossfan on January 30, 2018, 11:59:03 AM
Trying to keep away from this subject so 1st and last comment.
I won't be voting for the death penalty for babies who have committed no crime.

State of you.

Quote from: Hardy on January 30, 2018, 11:55:22 AM
Here we go.

You said it my man.

My only comment on this thread will be this and firstly on the "abortion on demand" term. It's a misleading and disingenuous term. No one is queueing up going "happy days....I'll be back soon for another one". This is a bad option all round. It's a horrific decision that some ladies and girls face and they opt for the least worst option.

Secondly. comments like some just before this that reduce the discussion to a black and white issue display either (a) a lack of intellect, (b) a lack of understanding of the issue or (c) and unwillingness to understand the complexities. My advice to anyone would be - don't listen to these types of arguments from any side.

Quote from: magpie seanie on January 30, 2018, 12:24:23 PM

No one is queueing up going "happy days....I'll be back soon for another one". This is a bad option all round. It's a horrific decision that some ladies and girls face and they opt for the least worst option.

That argument however, is frequently made, including on this board. "It'll just be another form of contraception" etc. because, you know there's simply a gaggle of people out there who will ignore contraception because they have the option of a physically and psychologically traumatic procedure available to them.

Quote from: magpie seanie on January 30, 2018, 12:24:23 PM
Secondly. comments like some just before this that reduce the discussion to a black and white issue display either (a) a lack of intellect, (b) a lack of understanding of the issue or (c) and unwillingness to understand the complexities. My advice to anyone would be - don't listen to these types of arguments from any side.

A failing of the internet.

Quote from: magpie seanie on January 30, 2018, 12:24:23 PM

Quote from: Hardy on January 30, 2018, 11:55:22 AM
Here we go.

You said it my man.

My only comment on this thread will be this and firstly on the "abortion on demand" term. It's a misleading and disingenuous term. No one is queueing up going "happy days....I'll be back soon for another one". This is a bad option all round. It's a horrific decision that some ladies and girls face and they opt for the least worst option.

Secondly. comments like some just before this that reduce the discussion to a black and white issue display either (a) a lack of intellect, (b) a lack of understanding of the issue or (c) and unwillingness to understand the complexities. My advice to anyone would be - don't listen to these types of arguments from any side.

Good man Seanie, well said. 

Quote from: magpie seanie on January 30, 2018, 12:24:23 PM

Quote from: Hardy on January 30, 2018, 11:55:22 AM
Here we go.

You said it my man.

My only comment on this thread will be this and firstly on the "abortion on demand" term. It's a misleading and disingenuous term. No one is queueing up going "happy days....I'll be back soon for another one". This is a bad option all round. It's a horrific decision that some ladies and girls face and they opt for the least worst option.

Fair enough seanie when you put it like that I can see I used the wrong phrase as I obviously don't think that either.

A few points.

1) We had a scare when my wife was in the very early stage of pregnancy with my second child, we thought we may have lost him so had to go for an internal scan. Thankfully, there he was, all 9.7mm of him with his wee heart beating away. I am not religious, but to me a life starts at conception and that was the first glimpse of my now two year old. I understand the pro choice argument but it doesn't sit well with me that the child gets no choice. We do not have a referendum in the north obviously, but I am not sure which way I would vote if we did. The fear would be the abuse of abortion, but maybe that is irrational as some have noted above.

2) I think EUTHANASIA is actually a much bigger issue that needs debated more in society. Where is the pro choice lobby here? My father is 61 years old and has been suffering from Alzheimer's for 6 or 7 years. I use the word suffering purposely here as that is what he is going through. I am not saying that I think he should be Euthanised but he should have at least had the choice when he was compus mentis. I know for sure if it were me the decision I would make. If a dog, or cat, or horse is suffering we put it "out of its misery". A human has to live through the misery.

Quote from: gallsman on January 30, 2018, 12:30:20 PM

Quote from: magpie seanie on January 30, 2018, 12:24:23 PM

No one is queueing up going "happy days....I'll be back soon for another one". This is a bad option all round. It's a horrific decision that some ladies and girls face and they opt for the least worst option.

That argument however, is frequently made, including on this board. "It'll just be another form of contraception" etc. because, you know there's simply a gaggle of people out there who will ignore contraception because they have the option of a physically and psychologically traumatic procedure available to them.

Quote from: magpie seanie on January 30, 2018, 12:24:23 PM
Secondly. comments like some just before this that reduce the discussion to a black and white issue display either (a) a lack of intellect, (b) a lack of understanding of the issue or (c) and unwillingness to understand the complexities. My advice to anyone would be - don't listen to these types of arguments from any side.

A failing of the internet.

It's an emotive subject. I don't think it's a case that people who are against it believe people will ignore contraception. But the has to be a realisation that with unprotected sex there is the possibility of pregnancy and some people will view that as being the start of another life. Hence they don't see that as just being the decision for the mother anymore and I would kind of be in agreement that there does need to be something there to protect the rights of the unborn child. That said it's hard to know where to draw the line on what would justify an abortion. Medical grounds, rape etc all throw up reasons why an abortion should be considered and various gray areas that will be considered.

Quote from: theskull1 on January 30, 2018, 11:40:41 AM
Abortion on demand is such a pejorative description compared to giving a woman the right to choose. Always a red flag to me when I read so called impartial posts on the discussion.

Four more months of:

Abortion on demand is such a pejorative description compared to giving a woman the right to choose. Always a red flag to me when I read so called impartial posts on the discussion.
v.
Giving a woman the right to choose is such an anodyne description compared to abortion on demand.  Always a red flag to me when I read so called impartial posts on the discussion....

I don't have a vote (buíochas le Dia), so I'm outta here.

What about the morning after-pill?

Should it be banned?

Quote from: The Gs Man on January 30, 2018, 01:52:04 PM
What about the morning after-pill?

Should it be banned?

We're not allowing whataboutery here G's Man ;)

Quote from: The Gs Man on January 30, 2018, 01:52:04 PM
What about the morning after-pill?

Should it be banned?

Interesting question - the morning after pill does not cause abortion.  It prevents conception.  If a woman becomes pregnant, the morning after pill will not stop the pregnancy.  So the moment of conception argument is irrelevant here. 

Quote from: Rois on January 30, 2018, 01:57:08 PM

Quote from: The Gs Man on January 30, 2018, 01:52:04 PM
What about the morning after-pill?

Should it be banned?

Interesting question - the morning after pill does not cause abortion.  It prevents conception.  If a woman becomes pregnant, the morning after pill will not stop the pregnancy.  So the moment of conception argument is irrelevant here.

Not all, and not always in regards to MOA. There are pills which prevent the fertilized egg from embedding in the uterus.

Conception argument back in play.

Ok - can't argue.  I read an article recently (in Marie Claire rather than the Lancet) that gave me my tuppenceworth on emergency contraception so on that basis, i'll bow out too as I clearly know nothing. 

Does a fertilized egg = a human life?
Does a fertilized egg = an embryo?

I don't know where to draw the line.

I do know that I suffer no guilt for the various times my wife and I (and myself and earlier girlfriends) relied on the morning after pill, but I'm pretty sure that I would have major issues with an abortion.

One is the prevention of implantation of a single-cell which may or may not exist. The other is the death of a developing baby you do know exists.

Whatever the philosophical arguments, I perceive there to be a big difference between a single cell (or even a multi-cell blastula) and a growing embryo or foetus. Not saying I can logically defend it to the nth (or even the first or second) degree, but I can sleep at night.

Quote from: J70 on January 30, 2018, 02:21:46 PM
Does a fertilized egg = a human life?
Does a fertilized egg = an embryo?

I don't know where to draw the line.

There are incredible complexities when discussing the "moment of conception". It's on a par with big bang and evolution. Some people/couples cant have children because they cannot complete the fertilization step. Some folks can fertilize - but not embed. Some can get as far as embedding but not maintain "the pregnancy". This can be impacted by the anatomy, physiology, endocrine systems (add on as appropriate) of the individuals and couples. Abortion will remain a 3rd rail subject for a long time, and my personal opinions don't lend themselves to generalizing the right and wrong of abortion. How abortion is used in each situation would be point where I'd have an opinion on the philosophy of it being right, or wrong.

What I do fully believe however is that in my lifetime, the philosophical dancing around abortion will cease to matter and it will be come a legally available procedure in Ireland. It may not be this vote, but I believe it will happen. You'll never know if someone you know/love/are related to has taken this course of action, and you'll never know what led them to that decision. You may already not know. Life (wish there was a better phrase), as we know it outside of the body - will go on.

Interesting that on here the vast majority are anti abortion are men, which for me is an unbalanced view, men wont be carrying children nor (in most cases where the child is concieved through a one night stand or at worst through rape) will they be bringing that child up...

It is left to the mother to give up a huge chuck of her life, for an accident of, the pill not working, forgetting to take it, condom breaking or being pissed drunk and having a one nighter or the worst, sex against her wishes..

I'm totally on the fence here, be very easy to say no or yes if you have had no experience of this, having a child when you are early 20's or teens and not married brings on lots of different problems... Hopefully that never happens to my daughters and they wont have to deal with that choice..

Not everything is black and white, Pro life Pro choice have to accept that there are reasons for and reasons against abortion

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 30, 2018, 02:43:24 PM
Interesting that on here the vast majority are anti abortion are men, which for me is an unbalanced view, men wont be carrying children nor (in most cases where the child is concieved through a one night stand or at worst through rape) will they be bringing that child up...

It is left to the mother to give up a huge chuck of her life, for an accident of, the pill not working, forgetting to take it, condom breaking or being pissed drunk and having a one nighter or the worst, sex against her wishes..

I'm totally on the fence here, be very easy to say no or yes if you have had no experience of this, having a child when you are early 20's or teens and not married brings on lots of different problems... Hopefully that never happens to my daughters and they wont have to deal with that choice..

Not everything is black and white, Pro life Pro choice have to accept that there are reasons for and reasons against abortion

I was thinking the same thing . Far too many women are left on their own bringing up.kids.
The current system is broken. Human relationships are very messy and health can be fragile.
There is no perfect solution.

I can't remember who it was on Question Time in Belfast a couple of months ago, but they took issue with the use of the phrase "Pro Life" and suggested that "Pro Birth" would be more appropriate.

I see two distinct groups but I'm wondering if there is another one.

The first are those who are pro-life for reasons linked to religious teachings. The second are those that think that the decision to have an abortion should ultimately lie with the woman that is pregnant.

Do any of you fall into any other category?

There are a few here were religious teachings will be a factor, but morally without having a background with religion they could be against it as they see a child concieved at that early stage is a life.. Now in most circumstances its the best thing in the world and when there are even some relationship problems with the couple and it may not last, but having that child and looking back at things its you'll know its the best thing that happened...

I'd die off if my wife said we are going to have another one, but hey ho, i'd just be retiring when they'd be nearly finished college lol

Quote from: gallsman on January 30, 2018, 03:03:16 PM
I can't remember who it was on Question Time in Belfast a couple of months ago, but they took issue with the use of the phrase "Pro Life" and suggested that "Pro Birth" would be more appropriate.

It doesn't really apply in this country, where supporters of capital punishment are few, but the huge numbers in the US who are anti-abortion but pro capital punishment illustrates for me how much of a misnomer "pro life" is for people who oppose abortion.

"Pro choice" is probably also too glib a label for those who advocate the extremes of abortion availability.

I'd started writing a paragraph there, had to delete it because I realised I have a panis and should have zero input into this discussion. It ain't our bodies, so we shouldn't have 1 say or opinion on the matter. Take note men.

Quote from: Therealdonald on January 30, 2018, 04:25:53 PM
I'd started writing a paragraph there, had to delete it because I realised I have a panis and should have zero input into this discussion. It ain't our bodies, so we shouldn't have 1 say or opinion on the matter. Take note men.

But you were born once!

Quote from: Therealdonald on January 30, 2018, 04:25:53 PM
I'd started writing a paragraph there, had to delete it because I realised I have a panis and should have zero input into this discussion. It ain't our bodies, so we shouldn't have 1 say or opinion on the matter. Take note men.

The Panis Monolgues by Therealdonald..

I'm against abortion for personal reasons which I'm not going to go in to  on a public discussion board. But thank God it worked out.

Quote from: Esmarelda on January 30, 2018, 03:07:29 PM
I see two distinct groups but I'm wondering if there is another one.

The first are those who are pro-life for reasons linked to religious teachings. The second are those that think that the decision to have an abortion should ultimately lie with the woman that is pregnant.

Do any of you fall into any other category?

I'm pro repeal the 8th to allow proper legislation based upon medical/legal/etc... reccomendations. Whether I'm pro life or choice is irrelevant after that.

1 - In the early stages of a pregnancy, a fetus does not have a brain or central nervous system. It is not sentient. It's "alive" in the same way a blade of grass is alive. Applying the label "baby" to a fetus does not make it a baby and it does not make it sentient. People are entitled to a religious belief that from the moment of conception there is a magical mystical force that comes into being at the time of conception, but they are not entitled to enshrine that belief in law and impose it on everyone else.

2 - Someone needs a kidney to save their life. You're the only potential donor that can help. For your own reasons, you don't want to. Does a doctor have the right to forcibly cut you open against your will and extract your organ? No. Even if another life is at stake, it's your body and your decision.

But of course this is all academic because thousands of Irish women have had abortions by travelling to England. The only people benefiting from the 8th amendment are the airlines and ferry lines.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 30, 2018, 06:18:54 PM
1 - In the early stages of a pregnancy, a fetus does not have a brain or central nervous system. It is not sentient. It's "alive" in the same way a blade of grass is alive. Applying the label "baby" to a fetus does not make it a baby and it does not make it sentient. People are entitled to a religious belief that from the moment of conception there is a magical mystical force that comes into being at the time of conception, but they are not entitled to enshrine that belief in law and impose it on everyone else.

2 - Someone needs a kidney to save their life. You're the only potential donor that can help. For your own reasons, you don't want to. Does a doctor have the right to forcibly cut you open against your will and extract your organ? No. Even if another life is at stake, it's your body and your decision.

But of course this is all academic because thousands of Irish women have had abortions by travelling to England. The only people benefiting from the 8th amendment are the airlines and ferry lines.

1. As you say a Human Life (not grass) has begun at conception. IF a brain is your base point then Brain cells are active at week5, for reference thats b4 morning sickness starts thats much earlier than the proposed 12weeks

2. If I grew a third kidney that my body was going to get rid off in a few months id be entirely cool with that

3. (Without trying to trivalise or demonise, for context only) Thousands of Irish people speed every day, should we get rid of speed limits?

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 30, 2018, 06:18:54 PM
But of course this is all academic because thousands of Irish women have had abortions by travelling to England. The only people benefiting from the 8th amendment are the airlines and ferry lines.

A lot of Irish people went to a lot of trouble to have the right to make different laws than England. No doubt you would have us just rejoin the UK.

Quote from: omaghjoe on January 30, 2018, 06:53:49 PM
1. As you say a Human Life (not grass) has begun at conception.

That is categorically NOT what he said.

You always seem to struggle with these threads.

Quote from: gallsman on January 30, 2018, 07:03:45 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on January 30, 2018, 06:53:49 PM
1. As you say a Human Life (not grass) has begun at conception.

That is categorically NOT what he said.

You always seem to struggle with these threads.

Its really irrelevant to the overall point he was making but anyway....
He said a  foetus was alive in the same way that grass was alive.... that just aint true, cut a blade of grass and it will grow back as that same blade of grass same DNA everything.
Cut a baby out of a uterus its gone forever no chance of ever fulfilling its life. It was a false analogy.

Let me know what you dont understand and I will be happy to clarify for you.

Ok, clarify for me why you stated that he said "a human life has begun at conception" when he clearly didn't?

Quote from: gallsman on January 30, 2018, 07:58:20 PM
Ok, clarify for me why you stated that he said "a human life has begun at conception" when he clearly didn't?

Why Certainly

I was agreeing with what he said, .... that life was present
Clarifying a misleading point... that it was human life and not grass life
And adding relevant facts ... that the life began at conception

Not sure of the relevance tho, there's certainly none to the point discussed... unless you could enlighten us?

Perhaps tho there is something in particular you disagree with that you wish to discuss? In which case I respectively await your response

Quote from: TheOptimist on January 30, 2018, 01:25:18 PM
A few points.

1) We had a scare when my wife was in the very early stage of pregnancy with my second child, we thought we may have lost him so had to go for an internal scan. Thankfully, there he was, all 9.7mm of him with his wee heart beating away. I am not religious, but to me a life starts at conception and that was the first glimpse of my now two year old. I understand the pro choice argument but it doesn't sit well with me that the child gets no choice. We do not have a referendum in the north obviously, but I am not sure which way I would vote if we did. The fear would be the abuse of abortion, but maybe that is irrational as some have noted above.

2) I think EUTHANASIA is actually a much bigger issue that needs debated more in society. Where is the pro choice lobby here? My father is 61 years old and has been suffering from Alzheimer's for 6 or 7 years. I use the word suffering purposely here as that is what he is going through. I am not saying that I think he should be Euthanised but he should have at least had the choice when he was compus mentis. I know for sure if it were me the decision I would make. If a dog, or cat, or horse is suffering we put it "out of its misery". A human has to live through the misery.

On euthanasia, one of the main reasons against is that making it available may create a climate which normalises euthanasia and may place pressure on older people to take that option. If it were to become available, it would need to be extremely well regulated and have sufficient checks in place.

On abortion, I find it difficult to see how some people can have such strong viewpoints one way or the other. It's an EXTREMELY complex issue and anyone who is 100% in one direction and dismissive of the other simply isn't engaging in an honest discussion imo

Quote from: Esmarelda on January 30, 2018, 03:07:29 PM
I see two distinct groups but I'm wondering if there is another one.

The first are those who are pro-life for reasons linked to religious teachings. The second are those that think that the decision to have an abortion should ultimately lie with the woman that is pregnant.

Do any of you fall into any other category?

I don't care what the church has to say on this matter, I am against abortion. If the church came out tomorrow and said it was pro abortion I would be against them. It just doesn't sit well with me. Abortion is a tool of the nazis who banned abortion for aryan women and encouraged it for non aryan women and those it considered inferior.

Quote from: Capt Pat on January 30, 2018, 11:37:49 PM

Quote from: Esmarelda on January 30, 2018, 03:07:29 PM
I see two distinct groups but I'm wondering if there is another one.

The first are those who are pro-life for reasons linked to religious teachings. The second are those that think that the decision to have an abortion should ultimately lie with the woman that is pregnant.

Do any of you fall into any other category?

I don't care what the church has to say on this matter, I am against abortion. If the church came out tomorrow and said it was pro abortion I would be against them. It just doesn't sit well with me. Abortion is a tool of the nazis who banned abortion for aryan women and encouraged it for non aryan women and those it considered inferior.

Godwin's law has been invoke already. Well played.

Quote from: armaghniac on January 30, 2018, 06:54:46 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 30, 2018, 06:18:54 PM
But of course this is all academic because thousands of Irish women have had abortions by travelling to England. The only people benefiting from the 8th amendment are the airlines and ferry lines.

A lot of Irish people went to a lot of trouble to have the right to make different laws than England. No doubt you would have us just rejoin the UK.

Yes. That's precisely what I said. ~sarcasm

Quote from: omaghjoe on January 30, 2018, 10:00:22 PM

Quote from: gallsman on January 30, 2018, 07:58:20 PM
Ok, clarify for me why you stated that he said "a human life has begun at conception" when he clearly didn't?

I was agreeing with what he said, .... that life was present

I categorically did NOT use the phrase "human life." It's a misleadingly general term that is used by anti-abortion people. Nor did I say "life is present." That's another misleading term.

My point is about "sentient" life. A fetus in the early stages of a pregnancy is not sentient.

Quote from: Capt Pat on January 30, 2018, 11:37:49 PM

Quote from: Esmarelda on January 30, 2018, 03:07:29 PM
I see two distinct groups but I'm wondering if there is another one.

The first are those who are pro-life for reasons linked to religious teachings. The second are those that think that the decision to have an abortion should ultimately lie with the woman that is pregnant.

Do any of you fall into any other category?

I don't care what the church has to say on this matter, I am against abortion. If the church came out tomorrow and said it was pro abortion I would be against them. It just doesn't sit well with me. Abortion is a tool of the nazis who banned abortion for aryan women and encouraged it for non aryan women and those it considered inferior.

The Nazis also used petrol engines. Are you opposed to petrol engines?

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 30, 2018, 11:53:38 PM

Quote from: Capt Pat on January 30, 2018, 11:37:49 PM

Quote from: Esmarelda on January 30, 2018, 03:07:29 PM
I see two distinct groups but I'm wondering if there is another one.

The first are those who are pro-life for reasons linked to religious teachings. The second are those that think that the decision to have an abortion should ultimately lie with the woman that is pregnant.

Do any of you fall into any other category?

I don't care what the church has to say on this matter, I am against abortion. If the church came out tomorrow and said it was pro abortion I would be against them. It just doesn't sit well with me. Abortion is a tool of the nazis who banned abortion for aryan women and encouraged it for non aryan women and those it considered inferior.

The Nazis also used petrol engines. Are you opposed to petrol engines?

The Nazis did not have a unique relationship with petrol engines. You should have used Volkswagen as an example.

I just think it's a bit odd that you'd compare a pregnant woman who's life is at risk to a Nazi.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 30, 2018, 11:51:08 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on January 30, 2018, 10:00:22 PM

Quote from: gallsman on January 30, 2018, 07:58:20 PM
Ok, clarify for me why you stated that he said "a human life has begun at conception" when he clearly didn't?

I was agreeing with what he said, .... that life was present

I categorically did NOT use the phrase "human life." It's a misleadingly general term that is used by anti-abortion people. Nor did I say "life is present." That's another misleading term.

My point is about "sentient" life. A fetus in the early stages of a pregnancy is not sentient.

Well if you had replied to my post instead of this current pedantic tangent youd find I had already replied to that... if it is associated with brain activity (and that is a big if) then that is present on week 5 of a pregnancy. Besides what form of life is not sentient exactly? even grass turns to face light after all.

Do you believe that a human embroyo is not "human life" or that "life is not present"? It contains human cells and DNA that will be present throughout the lifecyle as it grows to become an infant, child and adult. Im left wondering at what point would you consider "life to be present" exactly?

Quote from: thebigfella on January 30, 2018, 05:57:25 PM

Quote from: Esmarelda on January 30, 2018, 03:07:29 PM
I see two distinct groups but I'm wondering if there is another one.

The first are those who are pro-life for reasons linked to religious teachings. The second are those that think that the decision to have an abortion should ultimately lie with the woman that is pregnant.

Do any of you fall into any other category?

I'm pro repeal the 8th to allow proper legislation based upon medical/legal/etc... reccomendations. Whether I'm pro life or choice is irrelevant after that.

But by voting to allow proper legislation to be brought, are you indicating that you think the decision should lie with the pregnant woman?

Quote from: Capt Pat on January 30, 2018, 11:37:49 PM

Quote from: Esmarelda on January 30, 2018, 03:07:29 PM
I see two distinct groups but I'm wondering if there is another one.

The first are those who are pro-life for reasons linked to religious teachings. The second are those that think that the decision to have an abortion should ultimately lie with the woman that is pregnant.

Do any of you fall into any other category?

I don't care what the church has to say on this matter, I am against abortion. If the church came out tomorrow and said it was pro abortion I would be against them. It just doesn't sit well with me. Abortion is a tool of the nazis who banned abortion for aryan women and encouraged it for non aryan women and those it considered inferior.

Ok. But if the referendum is carried will you be overly bothered? Are you overly bothered that women travel to the UK currently for abortions?

Quote from: omaghjoe on January 30, 2018, 06:53:49 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 30, 2018, 06:18:54 PM
1 - In the early stages of a pregnancy, a fetus does not have a brain or central nervous system. It is not sentient. It's "alive" in the same way a blade of grass is alive. Applying the label "baby" to a fetus does not make it a baby and it does not make it sentient. People are entitled to a religious belief that from the moment of conception there is a magical mystical force that comes into being at the time of conception, but they are not entitled to enshrine that belief in law and impose it on everyone else.

2 - Someone needs a kidney to save their life. You're the only potential donor that can help. For your own reasons, you don't want to. Does a doctor have the right to forcibly cut you open against your will and extract your organ? No. Even if another life is at stake, it's your body and your decision.

But of course this is all academic because thousands of Irish women have had abortions by travelling to England. The only people benefiting from the 8th amendment are the airlines and ferry lines.

1. As you say a Human Life (not grass) has begun at conception. IF a brain is your base point then Brain cells are active at week5, for reference thats b4 morning sickness starts thats much earlier than the proposed 12weeks

2. If I grew a third kidney that my body was going to get rid off in a few months id be entirely cool with that

3. (Without trying to trivalise or demonise, for context only) Thousands of Irish people speed every day, should we get rid of speed limits?

But you are trivialising it completely aren't you?

Quote from: Capt Pat on January 30, 2018, 11:37:49 PMAbortion is a tool of the nazis

Well that's the end of any hope of reasonable discussion right there.

I have to say I am conflicted on abortion. I am loath to impose my morality on another person whilst being ignorant of there circumstances. On the other hand I do believe life begins at conception. How would I feel about my wife or daughter carrying a rapists child though? Easy to decide when your not impacted. On balance though I'd probably side with pro choice with clearly defined rules. In this day and age there really isn't an excuse of accidental pregnancies and lifestyle terminations.

There may be no excuse for accidental pregnancies, but its happening at an alarming rate, more so in England than NI as the rate has fallen here....

some stats below showing figures of teenage pregnancies and abortions

https://www.fpa.org.uk/sites/default/files/northern-ireland-teenage-pregnancy.pdf

how many times in Ireland has it happened that a 'woman dies for want of a abortion ' since this thread started nearly 6 years ago?

Quote from: omaghjoe on January 31, 2018, 06:47:08 AM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 30, 2018, 11:51:08 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on January 30, 2018, 10:00:22 PM

Quote from: gallsman on January 30, 2018, 07:58:20 PM
Ok, clarify for me why you stated that he said "a human life has begun at conception" when he clearly didn't?

I was agreeing with what he said, .... that life was present

I categorically did NOT use the phrase "human life." It's a misleadingly general term that is used by anti-abortion people. Nor did I say "life is present." That's another misleading term.

My point is about "sentient" life. A fetus in the early stages of a pregnancy is not sentient.

Well if you had replied to my post instead of this current pedantic tangent youd find I had already replied to that... if it is associated with brain activity (and that is a big if) then that is present on week 5 of a pregnancy. Besides what form of life is not sentient exactly? even grass turns to face light after all.

Do you believe that a human embroyo is not "human life" or that "life is not present"? It contains human cells and DNA that will be present throughout the lifecyle as it grows to become an infant, child and adult. Im left wondering at what point would you consider "life to be present" exactly?

I don't use terms like "human life" or "life is present" in this debate because these are inaccurate terms that anti-abortion people insist on using to muddy the waters.

I'm not going to get into a debate about the exact moment when an embryo becomes sentient, I'll leave that to the experts. I'm saying that at the early stages of a pregnancy we are dealing with a bunch of cells with no functioning brain, no central nervous system, and no ability to feel pain. What happens after birth is irrelevant to this debate, the fact that an embryo has the potential to become a fully formed human is irrelevant. We're talking about what it is at the moment when an abortion is required, not what it could be thirty years hence. If you want to go down that road then you're getting into "every sperm is sacred" territory.

Quote from: gallsman on January 19, 2018, 09:45:08 PM
See you think you're being respectful but you're actually a condescending, patronising, arrogant gobshite who thinks his views and morals should matter more than what's going on in someone's life. Shove your holier than thou attitude up your hypocritical arse.

Thankfully the world is moving on and the likes of you and Fearon and your oppressive, intrusive views are increasingly in the minority. The eighth amendment will be repealed and there won't be a thing you can do about it.

Guy who comes out with this mouthful complains about a lack of reasonable discussion.

Jesus wept ::)

And I stand by it. Anyone who comes out with, essentially, "my friend was raped and had a baby and kept it because she was surrounded by people who love her therefore anyone can and should do it" can f**k off as far as I'm concerned. I don't consider that kind of bullshit attitude to be reasonable discussion either.

Quote from: gallsman on January 31, 2018, 07:10:04 PM
And I stand by it. Anyone who comes out with, essentially, "my friend was raped and had a baby and kept it because she was surrounded by people who love her therefore anyone can and should do it" can f**k off as far as I'm concerned. I don't consider that kind of bullshit attitude to be reasonable discussion either.

Righty oh stew.  Fire away.

Rois was right.  This is gonna be a nasty one.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 31, 2018, 04:59:01 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on January 31, 2018, 06:47:08 AM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 30, 2018, 11:51:08 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on January 30, 2018, 10:00:22 PM

Quote from: gallsman on January 30, 2018, 07:58:20 PM
Ok, clarify for me why you stated that he said "a human life has begun at conception" when he clearly didn't?

I was agreeing with what he said, .... that life was present

I categorically did NOT use the phrase "human life." It's a misleadingly general term that is used by anti-abortion people. Nor did I say "life is present." That's another misleading term.

My point is about "sentient" life. A fetus in the early stages of a pregnancy is not sentient.

Well if you had replied to my post instead of this current pedantic tangent youd find I had already replied to that... if it is associated with brain activity (and that is a big if) then that is present on week 5 of a pregnancy. Besides what form of life is not sentient exactly? even grass turns to face light after all.

Do you believe that a human embroyo is not "human life" or that "life is not present"? It contains human cells and DNA that will be present throughout the lifecyle as it grows to become an infant, child and adult. Im left wondering at what point would you consider "life to be present" exactly?

I don't use terms like "human life" or "life is present" in this debate because these are inaccurate terms that anti-abortion people insist on using to muddy the waters.

I'm not going to get into a debate about the exact moment when an embryo becomes sentient, I'll leave that to the experts. I'm saying that at the early stages of a pregnancy we are dealing with a bunch of cells with no functioning brain, no central nervous system, and no ability to feel pain. What happens after birth is irrelevant to this debate, the fact that an embryo has the potential to become a fully formed human is irrelevant. We're talking about what it is at the moment when an abortion is required, not what it could be thirty years hence. If you want to go down that road then you're getting into "every sperm is sacred" territory.

Human life is present whether you like it or not.  As I said before a genome containing a DNA pattern is the accepted criteria for the presence of an individual lifeform. And from conception the same DNA pattern is created and exists throughout the life-cycle.
IF you are uncomfortable using factual terms because of which side of a an argument they may lead too you should perhaps reevaluate the facts instead of looking backwards from your conclusion.
The only thing muddying the waters is those trying to disassociate a human embryo with being human.

The only thing that "the experts" or anyone else can be sure about sentience is whether they themselves either have it or they dont. I know I have it, I can never truly know about you but I believe you probably do. I would say with certainty that no one knows how and when it develops in the womb. Its not part of my reasoning anyway as regarding the morality of abortions  so its irrelevant to me.....but then dont you believe consciousness is an illusion anyway? So Im not even sure why its even relevant to your reasoning either.
And besides if you are associating it with brain activity, which is present in week 5, is that your cutoff?

Quote from: omaghjoe on January 31, 2018, 09:05:57 PM
Human life is present whether you like it or not. 

Is it sentient?

Quote
.....but then dont you believe consciousness is an illusion anyway?

No. "illusion" implies that you think something is there that is not there. Consciousness very much is there.

Quote
And besides if you are associating it with brain activity, which is present in week 5, is that your cutoff?

Roughly speaking, yes. But it's all academic because the principle of bodily autonomy still applies.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 31, 2018, 11:37:45 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on January 31, 2018, 09:05:57 PM
Human life is present whether you like it or not. 

Is it sentient?

Yes, Human life is present and it is has a degree of sentiently like almost all lifeforms.
But not sure how it relevant to you anymore as you've already said below that it doesnt matter to your position on this.

Quote

Quote
.....but then dont you believe consciousness is an illusion anyway?

No. "illusion" implies that you think something is there that is not there. Consciousness very much is there.

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 04, 2016, 04:26:23 AM

Quote
The only feasible answer to these questions from a physics point of view is that consciousness is an illusion

Yes. A very cool illusion though.

It was a wile back but your entitled to change your position on this if you want

Quote

Quote
And besides if you are associating it with brain activity, which is present in week 5, is that your cutoff?

Roughly speaking, yes. But it's all academic because the principle of bodily autonomy still applies.

Well that was a pointless exercise then... so brain activity, consciousness or anything else that we were discussing have nothing to do with your position on this after all?
Or maybe your just rather crudely shifting the goalposts....Ill take a shot at them all the same tho....
When should we ask that human life for consent to suck its body into a hover? at a point where it can communicate or just assume that it wants to be ripped apart before it can communicate

Quote from: Esmarelda on January 31, 2018, 09:36:37 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on January 30, 2018, 06:53:49 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 30, 2018, 06:18:54 PM
1 - In the early stages of a pregnancy, a fetus does not have a brain or central nervous system. It is not sentient. It's "alive" in the same way a blade of grass is alive. Applying the label "baby" to a fetus does not make it a baby and it does not make it sentient. People are entitled to a religious belief that from the moment of conception there is a magical mystical force that comes into being at the time of conception, but they are not entitled to enshrine that belief in law and impose it on everyone else.

2 - Someone needs a kidney to save their life. You're the only potential donor that can help. For your own reasons, you don't want to. Does a doctor have the right to forcibly cut you open against your will and extract your organ? No. Even if another life is at stake, it's your body and your decision.

But of course this is all academic because thousands of Irish women have had abortions by travelling to England. The only people benefiting from the 8th amendment are the airlines and ferry lines.

1. As you say a Human Life (not grass) has begun at conception. IF a brain is your base point then Brain cells are active at week5, for reference thats b4 morning sickness starts thats much earlier than the proposed 12weeks

2. If I grew a third kidney that my body was going to get rid off in a few months id be entirely cool with that

3. (Without trying to trivalise or demonise, for context only) Thousands of Irish people speed every day, should we get rid of speed limits?

But you are trivialising it completely aren't you?

No... Im not, I providing context with a legal (not a moral) analogy.
I would suggest leaving any societal moral scale you or society might have out of it when considering this particular point, it it a purely legal comparison.
I could have equally said should murder be done away with because it will happen anyway.....but then id be demonising

I know it's the same language but no amount of mind altering processes or materials can make me understand you on these threads. And weed is legal here.

Abortions are going to happen, whether the pro life men on here like it or not, thousands stream across to England to have these unwanted pregnancies terminated. That's fact, arguing over when life begins is pointless also.. none of the posters here bar one will actually have to deal with that...

Should it be legalised here then the argument of how many weeks can be debated but the government health department will fix a period I'm sure and a criteria for abortions...

Surely it's better they have them here than having to go to Britain or backstreet abortions being done in non medical 'clinics'

Like I said before this isn't black or white, too many variables, steadfastly against it for any reason is wrong and willynilly reasons to do it is wrong also

For years Unionists used to point out how socially conservative the south was. The North had divorce. The South did not.
This abortion thing is a game changer . The South will have Gay marriage and abortion. The North will have DUP/Taliban.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/newton-emerson-iran-on-the-bann-is-facing-a-new-social-border-1.3375253

Quote from: omaghjoe on February 01, 2018, 04:46:55 AM

Quote from: Esmarelda on January 31, 2018, 09:36:37 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on January 30, 2018, 06:53:49 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 30, 2018, 06:18:54 PM
1 - In the early stages of a pregnancy, a fetus does not have a brain or central nervous system. It is not sentient. It's "alive" in the same way a blade of grass is alive. Applying the label "baby" to a fetus does not make it a baby and it does not make it sentient. People are entitled to a religious belief that from the moment of conception there is a magical mystical force that comes into being at the time of conception, but they are not entitled to enshrine that belief in law and impose it on everyone else.

2 - Someone needs a kidney to save their life. You're the only potential donor that can help. For your own reasons, you don't want to. Does a doctor have the right to forcibly cut you open against your will and extract your organ? No. Even if another life is at stake, it's your body and your decision.

But of course this is all academic because thousands of Irish women have had abortions by travelling to England. The only people benefiting from the 8th amendment are the airlines and ferry lines.

1. As you say a Human Life (not grass) has begun at conception. IF a brain is your base point then Brain cells are active at week5, for reference thats b4 morning sickness starts thats much earlier than the proposed 12weeks

2. If I grew a third kidney that my body was going to get rid off in a few months id be entirely cool with that

3. (Without trying to trivalise or demonise, for context only) Thousands of Irish people speed every day, should we get rid of speed limits?

But you are trivialising it completely aren't you?

No... Im not, I providing context with a legal (not a moral) analogy.
I would suggest leaving any societal moral scale you or society might have out of it when considering this particular point, it it a purely legal comparison.
I could have equally said should murder be done away with because it will happen anyway.....but then id be demonising

Why would you provide a legal context only? For what purpose?

Although the pro-life posters on here are mostly men, not all pro-lifers are men.

I am female, and I do not agree with abortion on demand for social reasons.

In England the rules on abortion were (possibly still are officially) that the mother health must be at risk, that has been interpreted widely to mean I a woman wants an abortion, if she doesn't get her mental health will be at risk, so therefore all abortion requests are signed off by the required 2 doctors.

So even with a caveat such as all women looking an abortion, must receive therapy, or only allowed in certain circumstances etc, the danger is that this effectively becomes abortion on demand.

Cases such as rape and fetal abnormalities are more complex, although for fetal abnormalities is it ok for someone to decide which abnormalities qualify, my sister was born with a fetal abnormality and lived for 4 months, now in todays world this would have picked up in a scan, and would by mum have been right to have a abortion?
Would aborting a much wanted child be any less traumatic than giving birth, and the child dying after a short length of time? Should she have the right to deny my sister her life?

I don't know the answer, and I doubt anyone really does.

Its a complicated issue from a moral point of view but my personal belief is that except in exceptional circumstance, where the mothers life is in danger, and the medical procedure required means an abortion is necessary, then I would be anti-abortion.

Good for you, solid post from someone who's seen some sides to the questions asked.. not easy on anyone, but these things need to looked at case by case before just shouting Prolife!!

I think the discussion is nearly moot at this stage. There is overwhelming momentum on the repeal side for this. It's hard to see how it doesn't pass.

Quote from: Puckoon on February 01, 2018, 05:01:50 AM
I know it's the same language but no amount of mind altering processes or materials can make me understand you on these threads. And weed is legal here.

Arent you in Nevada?
Any questions let me know

Quote from: Esmarelda on February 01, 2018, 09:30:13 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on February 01, 2018, 04:46:55 AM

Quote from: Esmarelda on January 31, 2018, 09:36:37 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on January 30, 2018, 06:53:49 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 30, 2018, 06:18:54 PM
1 - In the early stages of a pregnancy, a fetus does not have a brain or central nervous system. It is not sentient. It's "alive" in the same way a blade of grass is alive. Applying the label "baby" to a fetus does not make it a baby and it does not make it sentient. People are entitled to a religious belief that from the moment of conception there is a magical mystical force that comes into being at the time of conception, but they are not entitled to enshrine that belief in law and impose it on everyone else.

2 - Someone needs a kidney to save their life. You're the only potential donor that can help. For your own reasons, you don't want to. Does a doctor have the right to forcibly cut you open against your will and extract your organ? No. Even if another life is at stake, it's your body and your decision.

But of course this is all academic because thousands of Irish women have had abortions by travelling to England. The only people benefiting from the 8th amendment are the airlines and ferry lines.

1. As you say a Human Life (not grass) has begun at conception. IF a brain is your base point then Brain cells are active at week5, for reference thats b4 morning sickness starts thats much earlier than the proposed 12weeks

2. If I grew a third kidney that my body was going to get rid off in a few months id be entirely cool with that

3. (Without trying to trivalise or demonise, for context only) Thousands of Irish people speed every day, should we get rid of speed limits?

But you are trivialising it completely aren't you?

No... Im not, I providing context with a legal (not a moral) analogy.
I would suggest leaving any societal moral scale you or society might have out of it when considering this particular point, it it a purely legal comparison.
I could have equally said should murder be done away with because it will happen anyway.....but then id be demonising

Why would you provide a legal context only? For what purpose?

Huh?
Because the argument is that it should be legal because it happens anyway

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 01, 2018, 06:02:51 PM
Good for you, solid post from someone who's seen some sides to the questions asked.. not easy on anyone, but these things need to looked at case by case before just shouting Prolife!!

Most people are on a scale regarding it MR2. There are only a few at the very extreme ends.
90% of the people on here are men a good percentage of yis are middle aged farts too, a healthy portion are apple munchers... but all that is irrelevant to the points that are being made

Quote from: Syferus on February 01, 2018, 07:08:35 PM
I think the discussion is nearly moot at this stage. There is overwhelming momentum on the repeal side for this. It's hard to see how it doesn't pass.

Almost everyone opposed to the marriage devaluation will oppose this and I know people definitely keen on the marriage referendum who will have problems with this one if the proposal is for unrestricted abortion.

So you are no on abortion full stop?

It's like Jehovah's refusing a blood transfusion to save their life or wife's life or even worse, letting their child possible die. It's a stubborn view and wrong..

Abortion is not religious, it's not black and white.. what needs to be discussed is when it happens, what is the timeline and the criteria for it

Nothing has changed.. you personally have a view.. you are not or will ever be (unless you transgender and develop the ability to give birth!!!) able to put yourself into the shoes of a woman that's been raped and pregnant, you also won't be in the position were you can't mentally look after a child, or face up to the fact of bringing up a child alone..

Quote from: armaghniac on February 01, 2018, 10:55:57 PM

Quote from: Syferus on February 01, 2018, 07:08:35 PM
I think the discussion is nearly moot at this stage. There is overwhelming momentum on the repeal side for this. It's hard to see how it doesn't pass.

Almost everyone opposed to the marriage devaluation will oppose this and I know people definitely keen on the marriage referendum who will have problems with this one if the proposal is for unrestricted abortion.

Polls have the repeal side with a 28% lead. Even with margins of error that's nearly impossible to overhaul in a few months - this is a deeply held conviction and few on the repeal side are like to flip. Complacency appears to be the only concern.

I thought this would be closer than the marriage ref but if anything it's way wider. The repeal side have some silver bullets in the chamber in the form of the Savita case also. The wind is blowing in one direction only.

Quote from: armaghniac on February 01, 2018, 10:55:57 PM

Quote from: Syferus on February 01, 2018, 07:08:35 PM
I think the discussion is nearly moot at this stage. There is overwhelming momentum on the repeal side for this. It's hard to see how it doesn't pass.

Almost everyone opposed to the marriage devaluation will oppose this and I know people definitely keen on the marriage referendum who will have problems with this one if the proposal is for unrestricted abortion.

I voted in favour of marriage equality and held strong views on it.

I just cannot vote to repeal the 8th. Call me old fashioned but i cant agree to abortion, and no I'm not religious.

I think, no matter how much we all here will discuss it, the female vote - in particular, older rural women, will decide it. One would think that female participation, given the issue, will surpass other referenda.

The key to the older rural womens' vote in the gay marriage referendum was visibility - most of them had or knew of a gay relative or friend, and they were able to relate directly to giving those people a measure of social justice. I think the Oireachtas committee on the 8th, preceded by the Citizens Assembly, was a great platform for letting women tell their stories. Coming close to the referendum, I think we will hear more of these stories, and the more they are heard, the more that older, rural, female vote will relate to the issue.

And I think it is essential that all types of stories are heard - crisis pregnancies are not just about health issues for the mother, or fatal foetal abnormalities. If the referendum passes the battle will move on to the 12 week limit. I think it would be an absolute tragedy if we moved from the constitution inserting itself into female autonomy, to (mostly male) politicians doing it on the basis of electoral cycles.

I have a much tougher time with this vote than I had for the marriage referendum - and that is as it should be. Everyone has their own experience and their own conception (excuse the pun) of what life is, what it means, when it starts. These are huge, consequential issues and we should all be wrestling our consciences on it. However, if I face those difficulties as a 40-something male, who has never, and hopefully never will have to face such a choice, imagine the stress or anxiety a woman, or child, in these situations have to endure. For me, it is, literally, unimaginable, which is why such phrases as "abortion on demand" ring so hollow when you think about it. This is not about allowing a mercantilist choice to be made. This is about the deepest issues of life, health, and finally, autonomy over one's body, and what that means.

The debate should be long and it will be difficult - the issue demands no less. I'll be voting to repeal, but I understand those who will not.

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 01, 2018, 10:58:25 PM
So you are no on abortion full stop?

It's like Jehovah's refusing a blood transfusion to save their life or wife's life or even worse, letting their child possible die. It's a stubborn view and wrong..

Abortion is not religious, it's not black and white.. what needs to be discussed is when it happens, what is the timeline and the criteria for it

Nothing has changed.. you personally have a view.. you are not or will ever be (unless you transgender and develop the ability to give birth!!!) able to put yourself into the shoes of a woman that's been raped and pregnant, you also won't be in the position were you can't mentally look after a child, or face up to the fact of bringing up a child alone..

Abortion is not the only way out of this scenario. No woman should be forced to bring up a child they do not want, both for the good of the child and the mother. But there are other options such as adoption. 

Quote from: omaghjoe on February 01, 2018, 08:47:08 PM

Quote from: Esmarelda on February 01, 2018, 09:30:13 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on February 01, 2018, 04:46:55 AM

Quote from: Esmarelda on January 31, 2018, 09:36:37 AM

Quote from: omaghjoe on January 30, 2018, 06:53:49 PM

Quote from: Eamonnca1 on January 30, 2018, 06:18:54 PM
1 - In the early stages of a pregnancy, a fetus does not have a brain or central nervous system. It is not sentient. It's "alive" in the same way a blade of grass is alive. Applying the label "baby" to a fetus does not make it a baby and it does not make it sentient. People are entitled to a religious belief that from the moment of conception there is a magical mystical force that comes into being at the time of conception, but they are not entitled to enshrine that belief in law and impose it on everyone else.

2 - Someone needs a kidney to save their life. You're the only potential donor that can help. For your own reasons, you don't want to. Does a doctor have the right to forcibly cut you open against your will and extract your organ? No. Even if another life is at stake, it's your body and your decision.

But of course this is all academic because thousands of Irish women have had abortions by travelling to England. The only people benefiting from the 8th amendment are the airlines and ferry lines.

1. As you say a Human Life (not grass) has begun at conception. IF a brain is your base point then Brain cells are active at week5, for reference thats b4 morning sickness starts thats much earlier than the proposed 12weeks

2. If I grew a third kidney that my body was going to get rid off in a few months id be entirely cool with that

3. (Without trying to trivalise or demonise, for context only) Thousands of Irish people speed every day, should we get rid of speed limits?

But you are trivialising it completely aren't you?

No... Im not, I providing context with a legal (not a moral) analogy.
I would suggest leaving any societal moral scale you or society might have out of it when considering this particular point, it it a purely legal comparison.
I could have equally said should murder be done away with because it will happen anyway.....but then id be demonising

Why would you provide a legal context only? For what purpose?

Huh?
Because the argument is that it should be legal because it happens anyway

People wouldn't seek another country to drive in without speed limits because they're not allowed to speed here. People don't feel that if they don't drive a car very fast that their life will be ruined and all the mental health issues that go with it. Speed limits don't grow inside your body.

They're both legal issues but, in my opinion, you're trivialising the issue.

Quote from: Syferus on February 01, 2018, 11:02:08 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on February 01, 2018, 10:55:57 PM

Quote from: Syferus on February 01, 2018, 07:08:35 PM
I think the discussion is nearly moot at this stage. There is overwhelming momentum on the repeal side for this. It's hard to see how it doesn't pass.

Almost everyone opposed to the marriage devaluation will oppose this and I know people definitely keen on the marriage referendum who will have problems with this one if the proposal is for unrestricted abortion.

Polls have the repeal side with a 28% lead. Even with margins of error that's nearly impossible to overhaul in a few months - this is a deeply held conviction and few on the repeal side are like to flip. Complacency appears to be the only concern.

I thought this out be closer than the marriage red but if anything it's way wider. The repeal side have some silver bullets in the chamber in the form of the Savita case also. The wind is blowing in one direction only.

If the issue was simply seriously ill women or some forms of late pregnancy abnormalities then the repeal would pass at a canter, the introduction of unrestricted abortion will complicate this.

Quote from: armaghniac on February 02, 2018, 10:27:17 AM

Quote from: Syferus on February 01, 2018, 11:02:08 PM

Quote from: armaghniac on February 01, 2018, 10:55:57 PM

Quote from: Syferus on February 01, 2018, 07:08:35 PM
I think the discussion is nearly moot at this stage. There is overwhelming momentum on the repeal side for this. It's hard to see how it doesn't pass.

Almost everyone opposed to the marriage devaluation will oppose this and I know people definitely keen on the marriage referendum who will have problems with this one if the proposal is for unrestricted abortion.

Polls have the repeal side with a 28% lead. Even with margins of error that's nearly impossible to overhaul in a few months - this is a deeply held conviction and few on the repeal side are like to flip. Complacency appears to be the only concern.

I thought this out be closer than the marriage red but if anything it's way wider. The repeal side have some silver bullets in the chamber in the form of the Savita case also. The wind is blowing in one direction only.

If the issue was simply seriously ill women or some forms of late pregnancy abnormalities then the repeal would pass at a canter, the introduction of unrestricted abortion will complicate this.

Especially since the vast majorities of abortion are carried out for convenience.

Quote from: armaghniac on February 01, 2018, 10:55:57 PM

Quote from: Syferus on February 01, 2018, 07:08:35 PM
I think the discussion is nearly moot at this stage. There is overwhelming momentum on the repeal side for this. It's hard to see how it doesn't pass.

Almost everyone opposed to the marriage devaluation will oppose this and I know people definitely keen on the marriage referendum who will have problems with this one if the proposal is for unrestricted abortion.

"Marriage devaluation"??

Quote from: J70 on February 02, 2018, 11:43:34 AM

Quote from: armaghniac on February 01, 2018, 10:55:57 PM

Quote from: Syferus on February 01, 2018, 07:08:35 PM
I think the discussion is nearly moot at this stage. There is overwhelming momentum on the repeal side for this. It's hard to see how it doesn't pass.

Almost everyone opposed to the marriage devaluation will oppose this and I know people definitely keen on the marriage referendum who will have problems with this one if the proposal is for unrestricted abortion.

"Marriage devaluation"??

Ah come on J70, you're better than that. Nobody else bothered to bite at such a painfully obvious attempt at trolling.

Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 11:57:30 AM

Quote from: J70 on February 02, 2018, 11:43:34 AM

Quote from: armaghniac on February 01, 2018, 10:55:57 PM

Quote from: Syferus on February 01, 2018, 07:08:35 PM
I think the discussion is nearly moot at this stage. There is overwhelming momentum on the repeal side for this. It's hard to see how it doesn't pass.

Almost everyone opposed to the marriage devaluation will oppose this and I know people definitely keen on the marriage referendum who will have problems with this one if the proposal is for unrestricted abortion.

"Marriage devaluation"??

Ah come on J70, you're better than that. Nobody else bothered to bite at such a painfully obvious attempt at trolling.

I wasn't going to go down that rabbit hole and derail the thread (I think I did the "devaluation" "debate" with him at the time of that referendum). Just questioning why he left it hanging there in this thread for absolutely no reason. He's usually a sensible enough lad too!

But point taken.

Quote from: easytiger95 on February 02, 2018, 09:35:48 AM
I think, no matter how much we all here will discuss it, the female vote - in particular, older rural women, will decide it. One would think that female participation, given the issue, will surpass other referenda.

The key to the older rural womens' vote in the gay marriage referendum was visibility - most of them had or knew of a gay relative or friend, and they were able to relate directly to giving those people a measure of social justice. I think the Oireachtas committee on the 8th, preceded by the Citizens Assembly, was a great platform for letting women tell their stories. Coming close to the referendum, I think we will hear more of these stories, and the more they are heard, the more that older, rural, female vote will relate to the issue.

And I think it is essential that all types of stories are heard - crisis pregnancies are not just about health issues for the mother, or fatal foetal abnormalities. If the referendum passes the battle will move on to the 12 week limit. I think it would be an absolute tragedy if we moved from the constitution inserting itself into female autonomy, to (mostly male) politicians doing it on the basis of electoral cycles.

I have a much tougher time with this vote than I had for the marriage referendum - and that is as it should be. Everyone has their own experience and their own conception (excuse the pun) of what life is, what it means, when it starts. These are huge, consequential issues and we should all be wrestling our consciences on it. However, if I face those difficulties as a 40-something male, who has never, and hopefully never will have to face such a choice, imagine the stress or anxiety a woman, or child, in these situations have to endure. For me, it is, literally, unimaginable, which is why such phrases as "abortion on demand" ring so hollow when you think about it. This is not about allowing a mercantilist choice to be made. This is about the deepest issues of life, health, and finally, autonomy over one's body, and what that means.

The debate should be long and it will be difficult - the issue demands no less. I'll be voting to repeal, but I understand those who will not.

This isn't a female only problem? The babies aren't all female? I don't know how anyone can write when life starts is a personal decision....I've never heard any pregnant woman or couple say we're having a clump of cells...I've never heard any woman or couple who just had a miscarriage be fine about it and say it wasn't even a baby yet....
These are real people. They feel pain. They are being brutally destroyed, torn apart in cases.  Watch a video - see what's happening. Read books from former practitioners...read stories about babies that survived abortion only to have their spinal cords severed by the doctor outside the womb...read stories about babies that survived abortion who were left in a room to die and the nurses who could no longer take the screaming left the job.
I can't believe a society so intent on equality for all would so easily discount the lives of the most vulnerable. Can't bring them up because you're not mentally fit? Can't bring them up because you have no money? These are not reasons to consider an abortion? Those of you who are parents were you mentally ready to have a baby in your life? Financially ready?
People have to get out and vote....this isn't about religion - this is about life.

Quote from: The Iceman on February 02, 2018, 12:45:45 PM

Quote from: easytiger95 on February 02, 2018, 09:35:48 AM
I think, no matter how much we all here will discuss it, the female vote - in particular, older rural women, will decide it. One would think that female participation, given the issue, will surpass other referenda.

The key to the older rural womens' vote in the gay marriage referendum was visibility - most of them had or knew of a gay relative or friend, and they were able to relate directly to giving those people a measure of social justice. I think the Oireachtas committee on the 8th, preceded by the Citizens Assembly, was a great platform for letting women tell their stories. Coming close to the referendum, I think we will hear more of these stories, and the more they are heard, the more that older, rural, female vote will relate to the issue.

And I think it is essential that all types of stories are heard - crisis pregnancies are not just about health issues for the mother, or fatal foetal abnormalities. If the referendum passes the battle will move on to the 12 week limit. I think it would be an absolute tragedy if we moved from the constitution inserting itself into female autonomy, to (mostly male) politicians doing it on the basis of electoral cycles.

I have a much tougher time with this vote than I had for the marriage referendum - and that is as it should be. Everyone has their own experience and their own conception (excuse the pun) of what life is, what it means, when it starts. These are huge, consequential issues and we should all be wrestling our consciences on it. However, if I face those difficulties as a 40-something male, who has never, and hopefully never will have to face such a choice, imagine the stress or anxiety a woman, or child, in these situations have to endure. For me, it is, literally, unimaginable, which is why such phrases as "abortion on demand" ring so hollow when you think about it. This is not about allowing a mercantilist choice to be made. This is about the deepest issues of life, health, and finally, autonomy over one's body, and what that means.

The debate should be long and it will be difficult - the issue demands no less. I'll be voting to repeal, but I understand those who will not.

This isn't a female only problem? The babies aren't all female? I don't know how anyone can write when life starts is a personal decision....I've never heard any pregnant woman or couple say we're having a clump of cells...I've never heard any woman or couple who just had a miscarriage be fine about it and say it wasn't even a baby yet....
These are real people. They feel pain. They are being brutally destroyed, torn apart in cases.  Watch a video - see what's happening. Read books from former practitioners...read stories about babies that survived abortion only to have their spinal cords severed by the doctor outside the womb...read stories about babies that survived abortion who were left in a room to die and the nurses who could no longer take the screaming left the job.
I can't believe a society so intent on equality for all would so easily discount the lives of the most vulnerable. Can't bring them up because you're not mentally fit? Can't bring them up because you have no money? These are not reasons to consider an abortion? Those of you who are parents were you mentally ready to have a baby in your life? Financially ready?
People have to get out and vote....this isn't about religion - this is about life.

I have absolutely no f?!king idea how you can quote my post in relation to what you just wrote. Did you even read what I posted? Jesus Christ, I don't mind you having a different opinion from me, but at least read mine before you do. If that is your level of disengagement from the debate, from the position of others, then you have lost, you are lost, already.

Please don't misrepresent what I have posted again. No matter how passionately you feel.

Quote from: easytiger95 on February 02, 2018, 01:01:17 PM

Quote from: The Iceman on February 02, 2018, 12:45:45 PM

Quote from: easytiger95 on February 02, 2018, 09:35:48 AM
I think, no matter how much we all here will discuss it, the female vote - in particular, older rural women, will decide it. One would think that female participation, given the issue, will surpass other referenda.

The key to the older rural womens' vote in the gay marriage referendum was visibility - most of them had or knew of a gay relative or friend, and they were able to relate directly to giving those people a measure of social justice. I think the Oireachtas committee on the 8th, preceded by the Citizens Assembly, was a great platform for letting women tell their stories. Coming close to the referendum, I think we will hear more of these stories, and the more they are heard, the more that older, rural, female vote will relate to the issue.

And I think it is essential that all types of stories are heard - crisis pregnancies are not just about health issues for the mother, or fatal foetal abnormalities. If the referendum passes the battle will move on to the 12 week limit. I think it would be an absolute tragedy if we moved from the constitution inserting itself into female autonomy, to (mostly male) politicians doing it on the basis of electoral cycles.

I have a much tougher time with this vote than I had for the marriage referendum - and that is as it should be. Everyone has their own experience and their own conception (excuse the pun) of what life is, what it means, when it starts. These are huge, consequential issues and we should all be wrestling our consciences on it. However, if I face those difficulties as a 40-something male, who has never, and hopefully never will have to face such a choice, imagine the stress or anxiety a woman, or child, in these situations have to endure. For me, it is, literally, unimaginable, which is why such phrases as "abortion on demand" ring so hollow when you think about it. This is not about allowing a mercantilist choice to be made. This is about the deepest issues of life, health, and finally, autonomy over one's body, and what that means.

The debate should be long and it will be difficult - the issue demands no less. I'll be voting to repeal, but I understand those who will not.

This isn't a female only problem? The babies aren't all female? I don't know how anyone can write when life starts is a personal decision....I've never heard any pregnant woman or couple say we're having a clump of cells...I've never heard any woman or couple who just had a miscarriage be fine about it and say it wasn't even a baby yet....
These are real people. They feel pain. They are being brutally destroyed, torn apart in cases.  Watch a video - see what's happening. Read books from former practitioners...read stories about babies that survived abortion only to have their spinal cords severed by the doctor outside the womb...read stories about babies that survived abortion who were left in a room to die and the nurses who could no longer take the screaming left the job.
I can't believe a society so intent on equality for all would so easily discount the lives of the most vulnerable. Can't bring them up because you're not mentally fit? Can't bring them up because you have no money? These are not reasons to consider an abortion? Those of you who are parents were you mentally ready to have a baby in your life? Financially ready?
People have to get out and vote....this isn't about religion - this is about life.

I have absolutely no f?!king idea how you can quote my post in relation to what you just wrote. Did you even read what I posted? Jesus Christ, I don't mind you having a different opinion from me, but at least read mine before you do. If that is your level of disengagement from the debate, from the position of others, then you have lost, you are lost, already.

Please don't misrepresent what I have posted again. No matter how passionately you feel.

how should I have interpreted that?

I don't think anyone for a second would claim abortion is a happy, joyous thing full of sunshine, lollipops and rainbows, so it kind of begs the question, what exactly is your point?

And no, it's not about life. It's about birth. You don't give a toss about any of these cases after birth. "Be grand, sure they can put it up for adoption"

Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 01:46:54 PM
And no, it's not about life. It's about birth. You don't give a toss about any of these cases after birth. "Be grand, sure they can put it up for adoption"

You don't know anything about me gallsman. I don't give a toss about any of these cases after birth? You don't know anything about what I've done for these cases after birth or what anyone has done - all you know is what you have or have not done.

Which was exactly my point. People have their own experiences and views and in such a complex debate you can disagree whilst still affording opponents respect. Which is the exact opposite of what you actually did.

And that is the last time I interpret for you.

Quote from: The Iceman on February 02, 2018, 01:57:07 PM

Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 01:46:54 PM
And no, it's not about life. It's about birth. You don't give a toss about any of these cases after birth. "Be grand, sure they can put it up for adoption"

You don't know anything about me gallsman. I don't give a toss about any of these cases after birth? You don't know anything about what I've done for these cases after birth or what anyone has done - all you know is what you have or have not done.

Iceman, do you campaign against abortion by any chance?

Quote from: macdanger2 on January 30, 2018, 11:14:40 PM
On abortion, I find it difficult to see how some people can have such strong viewpoints one way or the other. It's an EXTREMELY complex issue and anyone who is 100% in one direction and dismissive of the other simply isn't engaging in an honest discussion imo

As they type these days "+1".

I can't countenance ever accepting these women who claim "bodily autonomy" means that abortion is some kind of human right.  Neither though can countenance people who could watch a woman suffer (and die in some cases) because in principle for them life begins at conception.   I think that there is a halfway house that allows compassion (and even morality!) with due medical supervision etc.

Those that are motivated to campaign seem to be the extremes so I am tending to ignore debates and would certainly not open the door to any of them.  On a personal level, as the father of a boy with Down Syndrome, I have observed too much cuntiness from both groups when they discuss people like my son.

/Jim.

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on February 02, 2018, 03:07:39 PM

Quote from: macdanger2 on January 30, 2018, 11:14:40 PM
On abortion, I find it difficult to see how some people can have such strong viewpoints one way or the other. It's an EXTREMELY complex issue and anyone who is 100% in one direction and dismissive of the other simply isn't engaging in an honest discussion imo

As they type these days "+1".

I can't countenance ever accepting these women who claim "bodily autonomy" means that abortion is some kind of human right.  Neither though can countenance people who could watch a woman suffer (and die in some cases) because in principle for them life begins at conception.   I think that there is a halfway house that allows compassion (and even morality!) with due medical supervision etc.

Those that are motivated to campaign seem to be the extremes so I am tending to ignore debates and would certainly not open the door to any of them.  On a personal level, as the father of a boy with Down Syndrome, I have observed too much cuntiness from both groups when they discuss people like my son.

/Jim.

Well put.  Just about covers it for me.

Would add what someone said earlier though - I'd hate to see it become an 'on demand'* service.

*I appreciate the negative connotations of that phrase.

Quote from: Franko on February 02, 2018, 04:48:01 PM

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on February 02, 2018, 03:07:39 PM

Quote from: macdanger2 on January 30, 2018, 11:14:40 PM
On abortion, I find it difficult to see how some people can have such strong viewpoints one way or the other. It's an EXTREMELY complex issue and anyone who is 100% in one direction and dismissive of the other simply isn't engaging in an honest discussion imo

As they type these days "+1".

I can't countenance ever accepting these women who claim "bodily autonomy" means that abortion is some kind of human right.  Neither though can countenance people who could watch a woman suffer (and die in some cases) because in principle for them life begins at conception.   I think that there is a halfway house that allows compassion (and even morality!) with due medical supervision etc.

Those that are motivated to campaign seem to be the extremes so I am tending to ignore debates and would certainly not open the door to any of them.  On a personal level, as the father of a boy with Down Syndrome, I have observed too much cuntiness from both groups when they discuss people like my son.

/Jim.

Well put.  Just about covers it for me.

Would add what someone said earlier though - I'd hate to see it become an 'on demand'* service.

*I appreciate the negative connotations of that phrase.

It already is.

For me this is a decision between living within reality or living in a make-believe land where these abortions won't happen at all if we don't legalise is. Governments need to meet the needs of their citizens and abortion is one of those societal needs. We can argue the term limits for it until we're both dead but an 'on demand' service is the only one that actually acknowledges real life.

Quote from: trueblue1234 on February 02, 2018, 09:41:50 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 01, 2018, 10:58:25 PM
So you are no on abortion full stop?

It's like Jehovah's refusing a blood transfusion to save their life or wife's life or even worse, letting their child possible die. It's a stubborn view and wrong..

Abortion is not religious, it's not black and white.. what needs to be discussed is when it happens, what is the timeline and the criteria for it

Nothing has changed.. you personally have a view.. you are not or will ever be (unless you transgender and develop the ability to give birth!!!) able to put yourself into the shoes of a woman that's been raped and pregnant, you also won't be in the position were you can't mentally look after a child, or face up to the fact of bringing up a child alone..

Abortion is not the only way out of this scenario. No woman should be forced to bring up a child they do not want, both for the good of the child and the mother. But there are other options such as adoption.

And my sister has been the luckiest parent in the world because of adoption... but thats one area.. I've simple view on it.. you can't say that no abortion for any reason is reasonable

Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 11:57:30 AM
Ah come on J70, you're better than that. Nobody else bothered to bite at such a painfully obvious attempt at trolling.

I certainly did not make an issue everytime someone used a WUM phrase like "marriage equality".

Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 04:51:53 PM
For me this is a decision between living within reality or living in a make-believe land where these abortions won't happen at all if we don't legalise is. Governments need to meet the needs of their citizens and abortion is one of those societal needs. We can argue the term limits for it until we're both dead but an 'on demand' service is the only one that actually acknowledges real life.

The same could be said for drink driving, speeding, underage sex, taking cocaine...
Do you favour having rules in GAA, or would you rather acknowledge the fouls go on and just let them at it?

Quote from: armaghniac on February 02, 2018, 06:23:30 PM

Quote from: gallsman on February 02, 2018, 11:57:30 AM
Ah come on J70, you're better than that. Nobody else bothered to bite at such a painfully obvious attempt at trolling.

I certainly did not make an issue everytime someone used a WUM phrase like "marriage equality".

Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 04:51:53 PM
For me this is a decision between living within reality or living in a make-believe land where these abortions won't happen at all if we don't legalise is. Governments need to meet the needs of their citizens and abortion is one of those societal needs. We can argue the term limits for it until we're both dead but an 'on demand' service is the only one that actually acknowledges real life.

The same could be said for drink driving, speeding, underage sex, taking cocaine...
Do you favour having rules in GAA, or would you rather acknowledge the fouls go on and just let them at it?

What a terrible attempt at a comparison to make.

Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 04:51:53 PM

Quote from: Franko on February 02, 2018, 04:48:01 PM

Quote from: Jim_Murphy_74 on February 02, 2018, 03:07:39 PM

Quote from: macdanger2 on January 30, 2018, 11:14:40 PM
On abortion, I find it difficult to see how some people can have such strong viewpoints one way or the other. It's an EXTREMELY complex issue and anyone who is 100% in one direction and dismissive of the other simply isn't engaging in an honest discussion imo

As they type these days "+1".

I can't countenance ever accepting these women who claim "bodily autonomy" means that abortion is some kind of human right.  Neither though can countenance people who could watch a woman suffer (and die in some cases) because in principle for them life begins at conception.   I think that there is a halfway house that allows compassion (and even morality!) with due medical supervision etc.

Those that are motivated to campaign seem to be the extremes so I am tending to ignore debates and would certainly not open the door to any of them.  On a personal level, as the father of a boy with Down Syndrome, I have observed too much cuntiness from both groups when they discuss people like my son.

/Jim.

Well put.  Just about covers it for me.

Would add what someone said earlier though - I'd hate to see it become an 'on demand'* service.

*I appreciate the negative connotations of that phrase.

It already is.

For me this is a decision between living within reality or living in a make-believe land where these abortions won't happen at all if we don't legalise is. Governments need to meet the needs of their citizens and abortion is one of those societal needs. We can argue the term limits for it until we're both dead but an 'on demand' service is the only one that actually acknowledges real life.

Nope. It's not in Ireland, and no amount of your bullshittery can make it so today. Just because your heroes across the pond offer it doesn't mean it's right for Ireland. As someone pointed out earlier, a great many people sacrificed their lives to make it that way. Though, the more I read from you, the more I get the sense that you wish they hadn't bothered.

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 05:43:05 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on February 02, 2018, 09:41:50 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 01, 2018, 10:58:25 PM
So you are no on abortion full stop?

It's like Jehovah's refusing a blood transfusion to save their life or wife's life or even worse, letting their child possible die. It's a stubborn view and wrong..

Abortion is not religious, it's not black and white.. what needs to be discussed is when it happens, what is the timeline and the criteria for it

Nothing has changed.. you personally have a view.. you are not or will ever be (unless you transgender and develop the ability to give birth!!!) able to put yourself into the shoes of a woman that's been raped and pregnant, you also won't be in the position were you can't mentally look after a child, or face up to the fact of bringing up a child alone..

Abortion is not the only way out of this scenario. No woman should be forced to bring up a child they do not want, both for the good of the child and the mother. But there are other options such as adoption.

And my sister has been the luckiest parent in the world because of adoption... but thats one area.. I've simple view on it.. you can't say that no abortion for any reason is reasonable

I never did say that. In fact in this thread I explained where I felt abortion should be considered. I don't believe that because the woman feels she couldnt raise the child is a reason to terminate the pregnancy. Support can be offered after birth and adoption is always an option. I don't agree with Sys view that abortion on demand is the only option.

Quote from: trueblue1234 on February 02, 2018, 09:05:08 PM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 02, 2018, 05:43:05 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on February 02, 2018, 09:41:50 AM

Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 01, 2018, 10:58:25 PM
So you are no on abortion full stop?

It's like Jehovah's refusing a blood transfusion to save their life or wife's life or even worse, letting their child possible die. It's a stubborn view and wrong..

Abortion is not religious, it's not black and white.. what needs to be discussed is when it happens, what is the timeline and the criteria for it

Nothing has changed.. you personally have a view.. you are not or will ever be (unless you transgender and develop the ability to give birth!!!) able to put yourself into the shoes of a woman that's been raped and pregnant, you also won't be in the position were you can't mentally look after a child, or face up to the fact of bringing up a child alone..

Abortion is not the only way out of this scenario. No woman should be forced to bring up a child they do not want, both for the good of the child and the mother. But there are other options such as adoption.

And my sister has been the luckiest parent in the world because of adoption... but thats one area.. I've simple view on it.. you can't say that no abortion for any reason is reasonable

I never did say that. In fact in this thread I explained where I felt abortion should be considered. I don't believe that because the woman feels she couldnt raise the child is a reason to terminate the pregnancy. Support can be offered after birth and adoption is always an option. I don't agree with Sys view that abortion on demand is the only option.

Any system that has anything else will just lead to women to fudge the system to get abortions like in every other country. Trying to put a lot of red tape around something like abortion sounds good in principle but in practice we know what will happen.

Face reality, this is a choice between no abortions and abortions being entirely up to the woman. No one who wants an abortion is going to decide not to because they have to say they have depression to get it. Legislate for the world that exsists.

I have three points to add at this stage:

I don't think a doctor should be guilty of a criminal offence if they try to save their patient's life if the patient or their next of kin wants them to be saved.

As a 30-something I have a lot more confidence that I could have handled an unplanned pregnancy as a youngster, but I prob wouldn't have had that confidence then. Depending on the question asked, my vote (if I had one) may have changed between the age of, say, 22 and 32.

I have no idea how you would legislate for abortion in the case of rape without effectively providing termination on demand. How is someone supposed to decide whether a conception happened as a result of rape within the timeframes being mentioned, and who is that someone who decides? Doctor? Judge? Garda? If you just accept the word of the alleged victim, then it could effectively become like the UK. And by saying that it sounds like I don't have any human feelings but I do. There are, of course, genuine cases, but people may in desperation say what is necessary if they thought no one else would get in trouble.

I don't agree with you. And Nor do I believe that if the choice is Abortion on demand that it would be passed.

Quote from: trueblue1234 on February 02, 2018, 09:51:54 PM
I don't agree with you. And Nor do I believe that if the choice is Abortion on demand that it would be passed.

You're about to be proven wrong so.

Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 09:52:34 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on February 02, 2018, 09:51:54 PM
I don't agree with you. And Nor do I believe that if the choice is Abortion on demand that it would be passed.

You're about to be proven wrong so.

I remember you being equally adamant about something a Tyrone minor was aledged to have done only to be shown up. I'll take my chances.

Quote from: trueblue1234 on February 02, 2018, 09:58:44 PM

Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 09:52:34 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on February 02, 2018, 09:51:54 PM
I don't agree with you. And Nor do I believe that if the choice is Abortion on demand that it would be passed.

You're about to be proven wrong so.

I remember you being equally adamant about something a Tyrone minor was aledged to have done only to be shown up. I'll take my chances.

Bonner definitely made that up, said no one ever. Look ladeen, stick to the topic.

Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 10:00:21 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on February 02, 2018, 09:58:44 PM

Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 09:52:34 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on February 02, 2018, 09:51:54 PM
I don't agree with you. And Nor do I believe that if the choice is Abortion on demand that it would be passed.

You're about to be proven wrong so.

I remember you being equally adamant about something a Tyrone minor was aledged to have done only to be shown up. I'll take my chances.

Bonner definitely made that up, said no one ever. Look ladeen, stick to the topic.

The topic is your jumping to conclusions and being wrong. My point is valid.

Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 09:52:34 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on February 02, 2018, 09:51:54 PM
I don't agree with you. And Nor do I believe that if the choice is Abortion on demand that it would be passed.

You're about to be proven wrong so.

Your attitude on this reminds me of some democrats before the election of Trump. Beware of believing too much in the echo chamber of your own social media circles. I think this referendum will be won by 55% or less either way

Quote from: macdanger2 on February 03, 2018, 12:25:22 AM

Quote from: Syferus on February 02, 2018, 09:52:34 PM

Quote from: trueblue1234 on February 02, 2018, 09:51:54 PM
I don't agree with you. And Nor do I believe that if the choice is Abortion on demand that it would be passed.

You're about to be proven wrong so.

Your attitude on this reminds me of some democrats before the election of Trump. Beware of believing too much in the echo chamber of your own social media circles. I think this referendum will be won by 55% or less either way

55% is a ten point differential, that's a landslide in a two horse race. The current margin is over double that. As I said before the margins are so heavily in favour of repeal complacency and the younger demographic of repeal voters (hence not bothering to vote) is the only concern. The repeal side should forget about the pro-life tit-for-tat and focus its efforts on a get out the vote campaign.

And Hillary never had a 28% lead three months before the election, Mac..

IS there any law that has never been broken?
or better still...
Is there any law that is not regularly broken?

The purpose of a law is to draw a line in the sand not to build an insurmountable barrier.

That line can usually be easily crossed by anyone if they want to, and is regularly crossed for almost all laws.

All laws have scenario where you could argue that they are ok to be broken: from jay walking to murder.
No law is 100% wrong every time it occurs.

Id possibly vote to repeal the 8th myself if that's all it was... And that's where the polls are at.

But sure didn't Leo say they'd be going for the 12 weeks on demand afterwards? That's a whole different ball game.

The 12weeks thing will happen if the referendum is passed you can be rest assured of that. Backed up with the mantra "sure it happens anyway, we need to facilitate for it somehow"

But that reasoning falls on it face pretty quickly as demonstrated above.

I never understood the "sure it happens anyway" school of thought. Doesn't justify it.

Quote from: RedHand88 on February 03, 2018, 09:14:32 AM
I never understood the "sure it happens anyway" school of thought. Doesn't justify it.

Pretty easy to understand. It happens anyway, you can't stop it happening therefore better to legislate for and regulate it.

Quote from: RedHand88 on February 03, 2018, 09:14:32 AM
I never understood the "sure it happens anyway" school of thought. Doesn't justify it.

Does it not justify dealing with it?

We could repeal the eight and replace it with "abortion in certain cases" and women would still travel to the UK for an abortion that didn't fit our particular criteria.

We could keep the eight and let all of our women that want an abortion continue going to the UK.

These, as I see it, are the two broad options other than giving women the choice of an abortion if they want it.

If we legislate for either of these then we'll be in a very similar situation to what we are now. And everyone can go back to sleep and pretend it's not happening.

Just because "it happens", does not mean you should automatically be complicit in it.

Quote from: RedHand88 on February 03, 2018, 09:44:05 AM
Just because "it happens", does not mean you should automatically be complicit in it.

Who said it was? Such replies are very frustrating, with all due respect.

There are several things in this which do not seem to apply to other laws. Things like you can't tell people what to do and that the British should determine what the proper policy should be.

People who try to compare women having abortions to criminals is so hard-hearted and lacking in compassion it's hard to know where to begin in debating the point, if it even qualifies as one and not as a distraction tactic.

Quote from: Syferus on February 03, 2018, 12:05:13 PM
People who try to compare women having abortions to criminals is so hard-hearted and lacking in compassion it's hard to know where to begin in debating the point, if it even qualifies as one and not as a distraction tactic.

So when is there compassion for the baby? Im sure your glad your mother had you.

Quote from: Íseal agus crua isteach a on February 03, 2018, 12:43:11 PM

Quote from: Syferus on February 03, 2018, 12:05:13 PM
People who try to compare women having abortions to criminals is so hard-hearted and lacking in compassion it's hard to know where to begin in debating the point, if it even qualifies as one and not as a distraction tactic.

So when is there compassion for the baby? Im sure your glad your mother had you.

Life is about choice.

Quote from: Syferus on February 03, 2018, 12:44:46 PM

Quote from: Íseal agus crua isteach a on February 03, 2018, 12:43:11 PM

Quote from: Syferus on February 03, 2018, 12:05:13 PM
People who try to compare women having abortions to criminals is so hard-hearted and lacking in compassion it's hard to know where to begin in debating the point, if it even qualifies as one and not as a distraction tactic.

So when is there compassion for the baby? Im sure your glad your mother had you.

Life is about choice.

Is an unborn child informed enough to make the choice?
How would they communicate their decision?

Quote from: omaghjoe on February 03, 2018, 04:02:50 PM

Quote from: Syferus on February 03, 2018, 12:44:46 PM

Quote from: Íseal agus crua isteach a on February 03, 2018, 12:43:11 PM

Quote from: Syferus on February 03, 2018, 12:05:13 PM
People who try to compare women having abortions to criminals is so hard-hearted and lacking in compassion it's hard to know where to begin in debating the point, if it even qualifies as one and not as a distraction tactic.

So when is there compassion for the baby? Im sure your glad your mother had you.

Life is about choice.

Is an unborn child informed enough to make the choice?
How would they communicate their decision?

It's the mother's choice. If you want to deny them that choice you'd need a very good reason why they shouldn't have control over their own bodies.

Quote from: Esmarelda on February 03, 2018, 09:23:42 AM

Quote from: RedHand88 on February 03, 2018, 09:14:32 AM
I never understood the "sure it happens anyway" school of thought. Doesn't justify it.

Does it not justify dealing with it?

We could repeal the eight and replace it with "abortion in certain cases" and women would still travel to the UK for an abortion that didn't fit our particular criteria.

We could keep the eight and let all of our women that want an abortion continue going to the UK.

These, as I see it, are the two broad options other than giving women the choice of an abortion if they want it.

If we legislate for either of these then we'll be in a very similar situation to what we are now. And everyone can go back to sleep and pretend it's not happening.

Its not ideal to have someone going to other sovereign territory to carrying out something that is illegal in their place of residence
But you would have to apply the same standard for all laws that are legal in other sovereign territories
You would also need to stop potential weed smokers from boarding flights to Holland or California.
Stop the rich from having residency in the Caymans?
These are ignored at the minute (rightly or wrongly) mainly because they are next to near impossible to enforce.

Quote from: Syferus on February 03, 2018, 04:28:20 PM

Quote from: omaghjoe on February 03, 2018, 04:02:50 PM

Quote from: Syferus on February 03, 2018, 12:44:46 PM

Quote from: Íseal agus crua isteach a on February 03, 2018, 12:43:11 PM

Quote from: Syferus on February 03, 2018, 12:05:13 PM
People who try to compare women having abortions to criminals is so hard-hearted and lacking in compassion it's hard to know where to begin in debating the point, if it even qualifies as one and not as a distraction tactic.

So when is there compassion for the baby? Im sure your glad your mother had you.

Life is about choice.

Is an unborn child informed enough to make the choice?
How would they communicate their decision?

It's the mother's choice. If you want to deny them that choice you'd need a very good reason why they shouldn't have control over their own bodies.

Yes that reason would be the taking of another life...

There is no better reason actually when I think about it

Quote from: omaghjoe on February 03, 2018, 04:34:22 PM

Quote from: Esmarelda on February 03, 2018, 09:23:42 AM

Quote from: RedHand88 on February 03, 2018, 09:14:32 AM
I never understood the "sure it happens anyway" school of thought. Doesn't justify it.

Does it not justify dealing with it?

We could repeal the eight and replace it with "abortion in certain cases" and women would still travel to the UK for an abortion that didn't fit our particular criteria.

We could keep the eight and let all of our women that want an abortion continue going to the UK.

These, as I see it, are the two broad options other than giving women the choice of an abortion if they want it.

If we legislate for either of these then we'll be in a very similar situation to what we are now. And everyone can go back to sleep and pretend it's not happening.

Its not ideal to have someone going to other sovereign territory to carrying out something that is illegal in their place of residence
But you would have to apply the same standard for all laws that are legal in other sovereign territories
You would also need to stop potential weed smokers from boarding flights to Holland or California.
Stop the rich from having residency in the Caymans?
These are ignored at the minute (rightly or wrongly) mainly because they are next to near impossible to enforce.

Joe you keep on comparing this issue to other legal issues. Why won't you let the emotional side of the issue into your arguments? The inability to smoke marijuana recreationally in Ireland hardly warrants discussion here. It's unlikely to affect anyone's life in a profound way. If we're talking medical marijuana then I'd vote for that to be legalised too.

Quote from: omaghjoe on February 03, 2018, 04:02:50 PM

Quote from: Syferus on February 03, 2018, 12:44:46 PM

Quote from: Íseal agus crua isteach a on February 03, 2018, 12:43:11 PM

Quote from: Syferus on February 03, 2018, 12:05:13 PM
People who try to compare women having abortions to criminals is so hard-hearted and lacking in compassion it's hard to know where to begin in debating the point, if it even qualifies as one and not as a distraction tactic.

So when is there compassion for the baby? Im sure your glad your mother had you.

Life is about choice.

Is an unborn child informed enough to make the choice?
How would they communicate their decision?

They obviously can't communicate. Who do you think is best to make the decision in their absence? I'm going to go with the woman carrying the foetus.

Actually Esm Id go with knowing what the child's choice is based on what every other form of life wants to do
.....and thats to live out their life until their natural death.

As far as not making emotional side into my arguments I already have so that's just not true.

However I am specifically responding to an argument that because an illegal act "is happening anyway" then it should be made legal. Therefore its within a legal context or law enforcement context, there is no emotional arguments there... it is either legal or illegal, or difficult to enforce.

I agree that this is not a debate about marijuana, the analogy was for comparison purposes in terms of the law's enforcement.

"Ireland thinks" poll shows the gap narrowing, odds on a Yes win coming down a bit with the bookies. Is there still a chance this will not pass??

Interesting to note a few unionists from up here taking an interest and vocally supporting both yes and no.

Quote from: RedHand88 on April 19, 2018, 11:57:33 AM
"Ireland thinks" poll shows the gap narrowing, odds on a Yes win coming down a bit with the bookies. Is there still a chance this will not pass??

It will pass but not by the margin of the same sex marriage referendum.

Quote from: RedHand88 on April 19, 2018, 11:57:33 AM
"Ireland thinks" poll shows the gap narrowing, odds on a Yes win coming down a bit with the bookies. Is there still a chance this will not pass??

Where are the poll details? Couldn't find anything online