abortion classic or dud?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I think its a lousy form of birth control,i am not sure that life does not begin at conception, i think it is traumtic for the mother

I think that there are not enough couples adopting, i think that the saftey of a clinic is better then a caot hanger and a back alley. i think that there are social and class issues that we have not dealt with

i think that i dont have a vulva, and therefore its not really my business.

there seems to be v. little rational discussion of this topic - do lets start one.

― anthony easton (anthony), Saturday, 28 September 2002 08:24 (10 years ago) Permalink

Classic, not least of all because if the body is able to decide to spontaneously abort a foetus for whatever (frequently physical) reason, then when the mind decides that it wants to abort one for whatever physical, social, economical, psychological, etc. reason then it should also be able to follow through with its decision.

― toraneko (toraneko), Saturday, 28 September 2002 08:54 (10 years ago) Permalink

It is a rotten form of abortion, and there are lots of couples who would love to adopt (and I speak as someone who was adopted), and it does carry risks (though invoking the coathanger and back alley may be dud - how many abortions resemble that?). On the other hand, I see no reason at all why a woman should be forced to carry the foetus to full term if she chooses not to, so I believe it should be available on demand. As to when life begins, I don't think there is an easy answer to that: I'm inclined to count it as a separate life from its mother when it can survive independently of its mother. How that tallies with the time limits in Canada, the US, Britain or anywhere else I don't know, but here at least the vast majority of abortions are carried out very early.

A story: in the '80s my wife suffered from Chron's Disease. One side effect was that, the doctors told her, she lost any chance of ever getting pregnant. Relieved rather than upset, she stopped taking the pill. In 1989 she became pregnant. Her doctors told her that her health would suffer hugely if she tried to have the baby; that she had only a tiny chance of carrying it to term; and that if she did there was only a tiny chance of the baby being born healthy. Neither of us wanted a child anyway. We wanted an abortion. We went to the Health Authority's appointment to set this up, and gave him this background. He said (I swear this is absolutely true) that the pregnancy was clearly a miracle, and had my wife considered that she might be carrying the Second Coming? Did she want to kill the Second Coming? Knowing we had to go through this doctor to get the abortion, we stayed calm but stood our ground. He eventually told my wife that she was a very evil woman who did not deserve this miracle, and he would authorise the abortion to protect the baby from her.

I know that doesn't make any kind of case for or against abortion, but I think it explains some of why I don't believe that it should be available at doctor's discretion: it gives crazed doctors this kind of colossal power over other people's lives.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 28 September 2002 13:41 (10 years ago) Permalink

martin i think you shd have reported that guy to someone: no WAY shd he have been doing that particular job

― mark s (mark s), Saturday, 28 September 2002 15:13 (10 years ago) Permalink

There's this one neighborhood of St. Paul I hang out occasionally due to a great old-school two-screen movie theater and a decent used bookstore. There's also a Planned Parenthood on the main drag, about 50 yards from a Burger King. Every so often there will be protesters marching around with huge placards of dead bloody aborted fetuses.

Let me emphasize again that this clinic is practically next door to a fucking Burger King.

― Nate Patrin, Saturday, 28 September 2002 15:46 (10 years ago) Permalink

Mark: This guy was a very senior doctor indeed, we found out - we were given to understand that pretty much any NHS abortion in Leicester had to get his approval. We did talk about complaining somewhere, but obviously it would have been our word against his, with no evidence of his lunacy at all, and my ex was very reluctant to go through any of the trouble it would entail. I was of course far more concerned about her mental comfort after going through that and the abortion itself to press her on this or go against her wishes.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 28 September 2002 15:55 (10 years ago) Permalink

Nate if you want a placement joke the Planned Parenthood in the town I lived in in Michigan had a sign that said "PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Please Enter Through Back Alley."

― nabisco (nabisco), Saturday, 28 September 2002 19:10 (10 years ago) Permalink

martin i find your story to be just plain bluddy awful, your poor wife ( and you ) it is a difficult decision anyway without some evil nutter forcing his views upon you.
i think abortion is a lousy form of birth control yes, but only if it is used as that. in certain circumstances i believe it is justifiable and women who choose it experience enough emotional turmoil without needing the harrassment of anti-abortionists. in the city i lived in last they used to stake out the clinics, loudly and nastily abusing women as they entered. police claimed to be powerless to prevent this and many women endured more trauma becuase of it.
the so-called back alley clinics went once abortion became legal here, and women no longer have to go through morally-twisted doctors to prove their case.

― donna (donna), Saturday, 28 September 2002 19:20 (10 years ago) Permalink

Except that there are a lot of rural areas of America where there are no abortion doctors within reach, and I believe that quite a few states still have parental consent laws.

One thing that's definitely dud: a LOT of doctors won't tell women about -or prescribe- the emergency contraception pill, which is nothing more than 2 birth control pills, taken 12 hours apart. It has to be taken within 72 hours, and I've heard horror stories of racing against the clock to try to find a doctor (esp. if you have a HMO) to prescribe it. That's just ridiculous; women should not have to be bouncing from doctor to doctor over something as simple as that.

― lyra (lyra), Saturday, 28 September 2002 19:50 (10 years ago) Permalink

as birth control, obviously not classic. my mom knew too many women when I was a kid who used it for that reason; I hate to imagine the health consequences. but I'm still completely for it remaining an option.

― M Matos (M Matos), Saturday, 28 September 2002 23:21 (10 years ago) Permalink

though invoking the coathanger and back alley may be dud - how many abortions resemble that?

I dont know how is it in places where abortion is okay but in Brasil where its prohibited most of the abortions by poor people are made by people there are more butchers than doctors. That or you take a shitload of pills there are prescribed for something else since there isnt a abortion pill

― vic (vicc13), Saturday, 28 September 2002 23:51 (10 years ago) Permalink

"I know that doesn't make any kind of case for or against abortion"

No but its unfortunate Martin, still Id be interseted in a rational explanation for abortion. Torankeo is the only one who appears to have any reason behind her beliefs. Anyone else?

― Kiwi, Sunday, 29 September 2002 02:06 (10 years ago) Permalink

yes i believe it should be an option to women in circumstances where health ( mental/physical/emotional ) is at risk, mother or baby.
i realise many people wish to adopt babies, but dont think this is sufficient reason to disallow abortions. there are so many complex issues to be considered by a woman when she finds herself pregnant, making abortions illegal doesnt stop them, it simply endangers the lives of women and allows the trade of back-alley coathanger type places to flourish.
the question of when life begins to exist is a tough one to answer as it seems to come down to every persons own belief system.

― donna (donna), Sunday, 29 September 2002 02:16 (10 years ago) Permalink

It is a tough question, and one I've thought about a lot- I'm a pacifist for religous reasons, and opposed to the death penalty for the same reasons, but I'm pro-choice. The best that I can come up with is that I've studied some biology, and to me life doesn't begin in the first 3 or 4 months.

― lyra (lyra), Sunday, 29 September 2002 02:22 (10 years ago) Permalink

Legal or not its another story, but its defently a dud.
Emotional trauma for the mothers, antiabortion wackos, prodeath wackos, antiabortion and prodeath wackos shooting eachother, antiaborotion wackos shooting doctors, doctors tossing fetuses out in the garbage like regular trash, cheesy TV shows (Degrassi not included) on the topic all adds up to being a super dud.

― Mr Noodles (Mr Noodles), Sunday, 29 September 2002 02:45 (10 years ago) Permalink

the fetal scooby doo episode on tv funhouse was very funny

― ron (ron), Sunday, 29 September 2002 03:08 (10 years ago) Permalink

Im trying hard to stay out of this one because I dont think this is the best format to discuss such an issue. I aint a woman either so that automatically puts me in the firing line.

The question of when life begins is a tough one though Donna I hope that its not something that cannot be looked at objectively -re belief systems.

Martin I find your definition about being able to survive independantly outside the mother not the most helpful- what happens in the future when they will be able to grow a baby from a test tube and never use the mother at all?

The Roe vs Wade really it was a non decision. The courts chose not to decide when life began because of conflicting medical evidence basically it was chucked in the too hard basket. Thirty years of medical evidence has swung the balance of scientific evidence in favour of the "religious pro life side" and will continue to do so. Thus we see arguments such as Tornakos ethical ones being pushed to the fore by abortion activists Id like to discuss that as well but later eh .

So when does life begin? Can we define it? Surely if we can define when death occurs we can define when life begins? That seems logical to me. So when do we die...
Where does life begin?:
1) Clinical death: Your heart stops. If when your heart stops, you’re dead, then by extension when your heart starts, you’re alive. Using this definition, most of even the earliest abortions are now illegal. But there is a problem. Clinical death is not final. You can be “brought back” from that, so it isn’t really death.

2) Biological death: All electrical activity in the brain stops. If when you cease to have an EKG reading you’re dead, then by extension when you start to have an EKG reading you’re alive. Since these brain impulses must be present to start the heart, they are readable before that. Even more of the earliest abortions are now illegal. But there is a problem. Even without the brain you can be put on machines that keep your body “alive”, so that isn’t really death, either.

3) Cellular breakdown and organ failure: The machines can feed you and pump your blood until your organs give out. Once the cell structure disintegrates and your organs fail there isn’t anything a machine can do for you. You would require an organ transplant which you would not get if you were in this degrading situation. Therefore, when your cell structure gives out you’re dead (really dead this time), SO BY DEFINITION WHEN YOUR CELL STRUCTURE IS FORMED (CONCEPTION) YOU ARE ALIVE.

I dont pretend to be an expert doctor, so my logic might be faulty nor take the moral high ground on abortion Id just like to hear rational sciencetific arguments for abortion not ethical ones as interesting as they are.

― Kiwi, Sunday, 29 September 2002 03:12 (10 years ago) Permalink

Abortion is great (as in INCREDIBLY fucking CLASSIC). Questions about when life begins are stupid. There is NO compelling reason to force a women to carry a child to term. Any argument which distracts from that ARGUMENT is a bullshit one.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Sunday, 29 September 2002 03:32 (10 years ago) Permalink

compelling stuff alex. thanx

― Kiwi, Sunday, 29 September 2002 03:57 (10 years ago) Permalink

kiwi if the only question was that of when life begins it wouldnt be such a sticky subject. your points are interesting and valid enough from a scientific view, but another area to consider is that of choice - does or should a woman have control over what happens to her body when it involves the *possible/potential* life of another being?
even if life begins at "point a" does/should the pregnant woman still have the legal/ethical option of terminating for whatever reasons are relevant to her?

― donna (donna), Sunday, 29 September 2002 05:46 (10 years ago) Permalink

I don't consider "when life begins" to be relevant at all to whether or not abortion should be available. Not least of all because it's distinctly unlikely that any consensus on "when life begins" is going to occur.

I firmly believe that abortion should be freely available to those who want it, those who don't believe in abortions needn't have them. The exception to this being that if the father wants the foetus aborted then I don't believe the woman should be allowed to carry on with the pregnancy.

I do understand than many anti-abortionists feel that they must protect the rights of the foetus because it cannot protect itself - even if the parents believe in abortion, *perhaps* the foetus doesn't?? This is where I have to partially agree with Martin - I don't consider the foetus's "live" status to be important but I do not believe that a foetus has any rights. The main difference between Martin & my beliefs is that "when it can survive independently of its mother" doesn't do it for me. Foetuses can survive from less than 20 weeks old with medical support these days. I'd say "when it can survive without any more assistance than the average full-term baby" or something like that - although that would be a bit of a compromise because I don't think a woman who gives birth to a full-term baby and kills/attempts to kill it straight away has done anything wrong.

As for abortion as birth-control, I reckon this almost doesn't exist, even amongst women who say that is what they have done/will do. I'd say most of them are actually in total denial of their fertility status - which is really a psychological problem that may have "abortion as birth-control" as a resultant symptom, or they have a lot of difficulty with birth-control for maybe physical or non-compliant partner reasons. Especially when a woman is in a compromised state due to depression & other mental problems, drug-abuse, physical or psychological abuse, etc. responsibiliby for fertility control can be beyond her abilities. I know quite a few people who've had multiple abortions and not one of them considers it to be a "form of birth control" but rather an unpleasant but thankfully available last resort.

For a woman who uses the rhythm or billings methods for birth-control then perhaps 3 abortions in 20 years would be far more acceptable than being on the pill or depo-provera or whatever (let's say she is intolerant to hormonal contraceptives, gets urinary tract infections from using the diaphragm and is allergic to the spermicide, can't use an IUD and is or has a partner who is allergic to latex or a partner who is too well hung for condoms or refuses to use them due to decrease in sensation) - especially seeing as women who are using the pill/diaphragm/IUDs etc also get pregnant every so often.

― toraneko (toraneko), Sunday, 29 September 2002 05:48 (10 years ago) Permalink

The right to abortion must exist so long as birth control is not one hundred percent perfect (which it is not) and more importantly is not readily and simply available to all who need it (which it is not). This is a point I simply cannot and will not shrink from -- I am greatly sympathetic to a stance like Michelangelo's, to be sure. Abortion as, dare I say it, 'casual' birth control strikes me as fundamentally horrifying -- but the larger issues override what potential abuse may exist, and those issues are ones of privacy (as established in Roe vs. Wade), self-decision and much more besides. I think of all my friends who are female and imagine what they would be faced with if they found themselves with an unplanned pregnancy -- in that case, they, and they alone, must make the decision.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 29 September 2002 08:07 (10 years ago) Permalink

By my definition, one needs to be sentient to be a human being.

As I see it (and have studied it), you're not sentient until at least 3 months (but I suspect it's more like 6 months). Thus, by my definition, a 2-month-old foetus is not human. I give not a scrap for 'potential human beings', the same way I don't worry about potential car accidents.

If it has not and will not happen, then those involved (including the 'potential' itself) are not harmed.

I dislike the way anti-abortionists are labelled 'pro-life'. In my eyes, abortion is pro-life. It's pro the lives of the parents, or those who would have to care for an 'unwanted' child.

― Andrew (enneff), Sunday, 29 September 2002 09:01 (10 years ago) Permalink

"I don't think a woman who gives birth to a full-term baby and kills/attempts to kill it straight away has done anything wrong."

Ah Im not really surprised at this type of thinking but it still horrifies me... but I guess my views must be as offensive to others as this is to me.

Torankeo

"Classic, not least of all because if the body is able to decide to spontaneously abort a foetus for whatever (frequently physical) reason, then when the mind decides that it wants to abort one for whatever physical, social, economical, psychological, etc. reason then it should also be able to follow through with its decision."

This to me is perhaps the most interesting point you make, still I find it difficult to accept as logical- any way I think about it.
Let me see if Im reading you right. Bear with me Ill try and extend your logic.

If we kill someone in self defense that gives us the right to murder *innocent*others?

If cancer or other diseases kill people then we should allowed to murder *innocent * others?

What you have avoided is intent.There is a crucial distinction between an unavoidable physical process taking place, and someone actually using his or her *will* to cause the death of another. Wrongdoing takes place in the will, whether in acting, or not acting.

― Kiwi, Sunday, 29 September 2002 09:02 (10 years ago) Permalink

Bear with me Ill try and extend your logic.

Why is it that this sentence is never followed up with an extrapolation that supports the original speaker?

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Sunday, 29 September 2002 11:05 (10 years ago) Permalink

if i were able to conceive, i'd like be aborting all over the place. I mean, it's just like shitting, but out of another hole.

― Queen G (Queeng), Sunday, 29 September 2002 14:52 (10 years ago) Permalink

i think also that talk of abortion as birth control is a little silly, because it's generally a painful, stressful, and expensive enough procedure that i don't really think most women would be eager to use it casually.

as lyra said, emergency contraception is a big part of this. it needs to be readily available to women who want it.

― ginny, Sunday, 29 September 2002 15:58 (10 years ago) Permalink

I don't get it - wasn't Kiwi all, like, "Let's bomb the shit out of Iraq' on some other thread? And now he's getting all worried about abortion?

― Andrew L (Andrew L), Sunday, 29 September 2002 16:08 (10 years ago) Permalink

Have you read Philip Roth's Nixon/Nam novel Our Gang, Andrew? It has a debate there about whether it's okay to massacre Vietnamese villagers if it then turns out that one was pregnant, and therefore the soldiers have performed an abortion. It's a hilarious debate, or possibly an hilarious debate.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 29 September 2002 16:14 (10 years ago) Permalink

I'm inclined to count it as a separate life from its mother when it can survive independently of its mother.

me too. mind you...

http://www.theonion.com/onion3119/stupidbabies.html

― mbosa, Sunday, 29 September 2002 19:41 (10 years ago) Permalink

Hmmm I knew this would get a bit personal- Ill stick to what Anthony asked for a "little rational discussion of this topic".

Andrew Im not sure what gives you the right to create a whole new defintion of a human being. I would venture my guess but that would be uncharitable of me. No honest biologist would agree with you.

A "human being" is defined by objective reality -- i.e., someone existing [a "being"] and consisting of at least one living cell that contains "human" chromosomes. The term "human being" can't be defined by a political, arbitrary formula based on convenience to you.

Even pro-death courts admit that there are non-sentient "human beings" (both born and pre-born).

― Kiwi, Sunday, 29 September 2002 22:16 (10 years ago) Permalink

I'm vehemently pro-abortion.

& kiwi - yr third paragraph makes no sense/contradicts itself!

― I R Secular Eschatologist (esskay), Sunday, 29 September 2002 22:56 (10 years ago) Permalink

There's this method called "the golden catapult" which...no, best stop....I can't believe this is even a debate.

― Matt (Matt), Sunday, 29 September 2002 23:20 (10 years ago) Permalink

I'm pretty much of the same mind as Ned. (Thank you for putting your opinion so eloquently.)

I think it's completely tragic, too, that the 'using it as birth control' idea is so often bandied about by the antichoicers -- women who do that are probably a bit less mythic than the 'welfare queens' so often invoked by anti-public assistance politicians.

Also the high percentage of in-power antichoice types who are male = total dud to the umpteenth degree, because like they've ever had to deal with worrying over a missed period, or not having the money to feed and care for a baby if it comes to term? (Note how the antichoice and anti-public assistance politicans frequently walk in the same personae?) And how many of those placard-wavers have funded abortions of wives, daughters, mistressesof theirs, anyway? I suspect the answer to that question is not "zero."

― maura (maura), Sunday, 29 September 2002 23:42 (10 years ago) Permalink

actually i DO know someone who uses abortion as a method of contraception. i don't know why - its bloody illogical, you're not okay with condoms but you ARE okay with abortion??!!

other than that, i think abortion is classic, for exactly the reasons ned said. i also think that someone who has never and will never carry fetuses inside them has a downright gall to decide that abortion is wrong period. if you are the biological father of the child maybe you have some say but ultimately it is a womans choice because a woman plays a much greater role in childbearing than a man. i agree with toraneko that arguments when about when life begins are not productive. even if they were, defining what life is by using medical definitions of death is pretty faulty. what is not death != life.

― di smith (lucylurex), Sunday, 29 September 2002 23:56 (10 years ago) Permalink

I'm pretty much of the same mind as Ned. (Thank you for putting your opinion so eloquently.)

*blush* To you and to Di both, thanks. :-)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 30 September 2002 00:10 (10 years ago) Permalink

you're not okay with condoms but you ARE okay with abortion??!!
meaning person who uses abortion aas casual method of contraception.

― di smith (lucylurex), Monday, 30 September 2002 00:37 (10 years ago) Permalink

Kiwi, I said "my definition", not "the definition". What you're arguing now is a matter of semantics.

All I was trying to illustrate (however muddily, and I apologise), is that I don't have any problem with destroying something that isn't sentient.

(unless it was once sentient, in the case of someone in a coma or some such, and has the potential to become sentient again. Obviously the destruction of such a future-sentient being would be detrimental to those who loved it in it's previous sentience.)

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 04:03 (10 years ago) Permalink

Fair enough Andrew. Di your reply is not worth commenting on other than to ask do you hate all men or just the ones who have a penis? I think Ill bow out of this one before it grows into an atomic kitten sized debacle.

― Kiwi, Monday, 30 September 2002 04:27 (10 years ago) Permalink

I don't see how you can interperet Di's comments as man-hating. All she did was highlight the fact that the discussion is one that should be of much more concern to women than men.

You're the only one who'll nurture this discussion into an "atomic kitten sized debacle" with blatantly provocative comments like "do you hate all men or just the ones who have a penis?"

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 04:58 (10 years ago) Permalink

Not only that, but Di also quite rightly illustrated that it is quite unfair for a man to all-out condemn abortion. No man can make that decision, and is never expected to, and thus has misplaced intentions in condemning the women who do.

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 05:02 (10 years ago) Permalink

Andrew

A man and a woman make a fetus, the father needs some say.

― anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 30 September 2002 05:08 (10 years ago) Permalink

the father needs some say

I don't agree with this, for any number of personal reasons. Your body is your own, not your partner's (or anyone else's for that matter).

― electric sound of jim (electricsound), Monday, 30 September 2002 05:16 (10 years ago) Permalink

well we are not talking about one body, we are talking about a biological process that requires two

― anthony easton (anthony), Monday, 30 September 2002 05:31 (10 years ago) Permalink

I'm not saying that the man has no say, I'm just saying he has no right to flatly condemn the practice.

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 06:12 (10 years ago) Permalink

And more specifically, to flatly condemn the practice when referring to potential people that they aren't fathering themselves!

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 06:13 (10 years ago) Permalink

Men have no say.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 30 September 2002 06:20 (10 years ago) Permalink

To an aside:

The decision to abort a child is, ultimately, the mother's.

However, if a man and a woman are in a relationship together, and the woman becomes pregnant, obviously the two will have to have lengthly discussion, and arrive at a mutual decision, before any action is taken.

From the male point of view:

I would not want a child that is 'half me' being born without my consent, especially if I wouldn't be able to care for the child directly. I would expect many to react with sympathy for me on this issue.

On the other hand, were I anti-abortion, and were I wanting my partner (or ex-partner) to have this child on my behalf, I would expect people to react negatively towards me. I have no right to force someone else to have a child.

I guess the bottom line is this: before sleeping with someone you should find out how they feel about abortion. If you're not comfortable with their views, then don't fuck. End of story.

― Andrew (enneff), Monday, 30 September 2002 06:22 (10 years ago) Permalink

Di your reply is not worth commenting on other than to ask do you hate all men or just the ones who have a penis?

translate: you feminist bitch, shut your mouth, how dare you make valid criticisms of my flimsy arguments?

― di smith (lucylurex), Monday, 30 September 2002 06:46 (10 years ago) Permalink

I realize that this is considered the "logical" way of looking at pregnancy, but unfortunately it is wrong wrong wrong. A women HAS to DO NOTHING (and should not have to DO ANYTHING). She does not have to inform her husband. No mutual decision need be arrived at. No lengthy discussions either. A women wants to end a pregnancy, she does. No man, no other woman, no government, no religious organization should be able to decide whether or not the pregnancy is carried to term. End of story.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Monday, 30 September 2002 07:23 (10 years ago) Permalink

Skipping 1225 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

wonderful imo article about abortion provision and how we neglect to afford the same moral and legal protections to conscientious providers as we do objectors

(i think this is free) http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1206253

― la goonies (k3vin k.), Thursday, 13 September 2012 00:38 (9 months ago) Permalink

http://jezebel.com/5944213/abortions-increase-by-25-in-totally-pro+life-arizona

― a shark with a rippling six pack (Phil D.), Tuesday, 18 September 2012 23:59 (9 months ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

YES

― Force Boxman (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 23 October 2012 20:19 (7 months ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html

― NAMES A CUNTZ FAE RENFRA (Nilmar Honorato da Silva), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 13:34 (7 months ago) Permalink

Wretched.

― One bad call from barely losing to (Alex in SF), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 13:37 (7 months ago) Permalink

fucking awful

― 乒乓, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 13:44 (7 months ago) Permalink

Ireland's law against abortion was inherited from a British law enacted in 1861. It has never gone off the books, making Ireland one of only two nations in the European Union to ban abortion completely (the other being Malta). Ireland also amended its Constitution in 1983 to recognize a right to life in the unborn, "with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother."
But in 1992, the Irish Supreme Court ruled that abortion was permitted if there was "a real and substantial risk" to the life of the mother. This judgment came in the wake of the X Case, when a 14-year-old girl, who was suicidal after becoming pregnant following a rape, was sequestered by the state in order to stop her obtaining an abortion in the UK. She subsequently miscarried.
Despite the ruling, Ireland's abortion ban was never revised to incorporate the court-mandated exception, leaving a legal limbo.

― NAMES A CUNTZ FAE RENFRA (Nilmar Honorato da Silva), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 13:58 (7 months ago) Permalink

yeah. Posted that to the irish politics thread. Just dreadful.

― bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:02 (7 months ago) Permalink

that's terrible.

one of the things that really stuck with me from reading this io9 report on an ongoing longitudinal study on women who are denied abortions was the finding that "even later abortion is safer than childbirth" -- it's so easy to forget just how dangerous pregnancy is, even without laws like this.

― of course you end up shazaming yourself (c sharp major), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:07 (7 months ago) Permalink

The court unanimously found there had been a violation of article 8 in respect of applicant C [ie a woman with cancer]. It concluded that the Irish authorities failed to comply with their obligations because of the absence of any legislative or regulatory procedure by which the applicant could have established whether she qualified for a lawful abortion in Ireland in accordance with article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. The court awarded her €15,000 in damages.

Cardinal Seán Brady has pre-empted the report from the expert group appointed to examine how best to implement the judgment of the court, saying that Catholic bishops and priests will launch a full-scale campaign of opposition if there is any attempt by the Government to legislate for abortion.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2012/0904/1224323571167.html

― NAMES A CUNTZ FAE RENFRA (Nilmar Honorato da Silva), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:11 (7 months ago) Permalink

"Politicians privately admit this is due to a belief on their part that people in the Irish Republic don't want abortion in Ireland as long as there's a British solution to the country's abortion problem."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

― of course you end up shazaming yourself (c sharp major), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:12 (7 months ago) Permalink

i don't think the majority of irish politicians believe any such thing.

― bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:16 (7 months ago) Permalink

mainstream parties still made up of politicians that lean towards religiously conservative, and whether that's a public stance or held belief the effect is the same. they're also very conscious that , while a divisive issue, the loudest, longest and more focused protest will come from the 'no' side. shameful that this has kept them so long from legislating for even the medically necesasary cases.

― bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:20 (7 months ago) Permalink

there's a british solution to the country's abortion problem, though sometimes it requires a cancer patient 'unemployed, depressed and living in poverty' to borrow €650 from 'a moneylender' to pay for the trip

― NAMES A CUNTZ FAE RENFRA (Nilmar Honorato da Silva), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:24 (7 months ago) Permalink

sometimes feel like the whole fuckin country is the dragging tail-end of the solution to a british problem tbph

― bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:28 (7 months ago) Permalink

this death is directly consequential from the failure by the legislature to confront the catholic hierarchy, whose bishops instituted a widespread cover-up of child rape by clerics and who now conspire to endanger the lives of pregnant women, and create a clear statutory exemption for these cases

the doctors in this instance were craven, but they suffer from the same uncertainty that the ECHR established was unlawful -- the best that could be said is that they ~probably~ would not have been prosecuted

― NAMES A CUNTZ FAE RENFRA (Nilmar Honorato da Silva), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:36 (7 months ago) Permalink

hierarchy, probably not so much. Relations there are prob at a low since kenny's speeches of last year. But the on-the-ground catholic vote would come out strong against any party legislating for abortion, whereas the people either for or unbothered either way is probably a nebulous camp

― bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:43 (7 months ago) Permalink

do you think a case like this will have any effect on public opinion, legislators or even the catholic hierarchy, or do you expect their responses to be entrenchment of the existing position?

― #YOLO ONO (lex pretend), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:48 (7 months ago) Permalink

dunno if i'm out of touch with home, but I reckon a yes vote would be carried, perhaps not resoundingly but i don't think it'd be so tight. am i wrong?

― Heterocyclic ring ring (LocalGarda), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:54 (7 months ago) Permalink

i'd be pretty surprised if nothing changes after this, photogenic middle class woman dying of septicaemia because 'nothing could be done', it's going to be a media shitstorm

it's rare to see a case that more perfectly illustrates the idiocy and moral squalour of a particular law for campaigning purposes

― NAMES A CUNTZ FAE RENFRA (Nilmar Honorato da Silva), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:57 (7 months ago) Permalink

i think it will have an effect- i think that ireland is a growingly liberal country, certainly it's well past the days of church influencing most social issues in any meaningful way. A case like this might be the focal point needed to counteract the minority but hardcore catholic/conservative groups that have punched above their weight in the political discourse about abortion up til now.

That's hopefully not just wishful thinking, y'know? I do think there's a groundswell in favour of *at least* legislation covering abortion during medical intervention- our own supreme court has ruled this was a legal necessity almost a generation ago.

― bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 14:58 (7 months ago) Permalink

it's amazing it's been so overlooked as an issue since whenever that information referendum happened.

― Heterocyclic ring ring (LocalGarda), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:09 (7 months ago) Permalink

early 90s was it?

― Heterocyclic ring ring (LocalGarda), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:09 (7 months ago) Permalink

x case etc was 93 iirc

― bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:10 (7 months ago) Permalink

and FF in power for most of the intervening time. Tight buddies.

― bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:11 (7 months ago) Permalink

jesus christ

― all mods con (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:37 (7 months ago) Permalink

can't really think of any excuse that these doctors aren't 1) evil, 2) cowards, or 3) both

― all mods con (k3vin k.), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:38 (7 months ago) Permalink

i think there's a fair case for (c) incompetence, that they were not aware that there was a serious risk to the life of the patient, but rly there's not enough hard info to claim that just yet.

― bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:42 (7 months ago) Permalink

In a country where abortion is banned, how many doctors even know how to safely perform one?

― just1n3, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:45 (7 months ago) Permalink

you'd need to have been in an irish hospital in the last while to credit that fully, maybe. Health system's chronically understaffed

― bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:45 (7 months ago) Permalink

iirc most hospitals would be trained in d&c which is used sometimes post-miscarriage, which is basically the same procedure

― under minnesota shakedown (mh), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:46 (7 months ago) Permalink

idk just1ne, seems a fair question.

A clinic opened in belfast, ie in another country, last month- caused uproar as they will be offering family planning services

― bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:49 (7 months ago) Permalink

wtf ireland

― under minnesota shakedown (mh), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 15:50 (7 months ago) Permalink

ianad but I think a d&c is a scraping of the womb, actually terminating a pregnancy is different

― just1n3, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 16:17 (7 months ago) Permalink

This story makes me so goddamn mad.

― WilliamC, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 16:19 (7 months ago) Permalink

There are different ways to perform abortion but a D&C is one of them. It's used for lots of things including terminating a pregnancy if one is present so I think that MH is right in that there would definitely be doctor's present who could have done so.

― ENBB, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 16:22 (7 months ago) Permalink

Dilation (or dilatation) and curettage (D&C) refers to the dilation (widening/opening) of the cervix and surgical removal of part of the lining of the uterus and/or contents of the uterus by scraping and scooping (curettage). It is a therapeutic gynecological procedure as well as a rarely used method of first trimester abortion.[1][2]

It's not the most common way to perform early abortions (I think that would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_evacuation maybe though I might be wrong on that) but it can be used. Oh but she way way further along than that so nevermind.

― ENBB, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 16:24 (7 months ago) Permalink

I think a D&C can only be used for abortion in the first trimester.

― ENBB, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 16:24 (7 months ago) Permalink

It's not used very often for abortion anymore because there are better/easier/safer ways that don't involve as much sedation, but it's still used for miscarriages in countries that don't allow other things that could be used for /easy/ abortions. Some first-trimester abortions are still done as "post-miscarriage" procedures in countries in a hush-hush manner

― under minnesota shakedown (mh), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 16:25 (7 months ago) Permalink

But yes, not applicable in this case

― under minnesota shakedown (mh), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 16:25 (7 months ago) Permalink

mainstream parties still made up of politicians that lean towards religiously conservative, and whether that's a public stance or held belief the effect is the same. they're also very conscious that, while a divisive issue, the loudest, longest and more focused protest will come from the 'no' side. shameful that this has kept them so long from legislating for even the medically necesasary cases.

Well, voter turnout has been so apathetic the last decade and old people are probably the single most reliable group anywhere so they are right to assume that this would be strongly fought by the No side. I would personally be pro abortion on demand, as would a lot of people I know, but...we emigrated. We have no vote! The part that worries me is not if there is popular opinion to change the law because I've fully believed there has been for some time now, but whether low turnout and the removal of likely Yes votes from contention would still force a No.

― gyac, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 17:48 (7 months ago) Permalink

agree fully, but i think events/occurrences like this could galvanise the yes vote (course, they yes side would need galvanising in order to force a vote in any case as things stand)

― bill paxman (darraghmac), Wednesday, 14 November 2012 17:50 (7 months ago) Permalink

I don't doubt you for a second, and I also wonder if prospective No voters would stay at home if there was a vote. I see that there are protests outside the Dáil and the Embassy here in London. Good.

― gyac, Wednesday, 14 November 2012 18:09 (7 months ago) Permalink

3 months pass...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/06/opinion/oconnor-surrogate-abortion/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

interesting story. parents pay woman to be their surrogate; when they see that the child will be born severely disabled, they ask her to terminate (something they agreed to beforehand). she refuses, but tries to haggle with them: for an extra $10k she's morally against it, but make it $15k and we'll talk

― k3vin k., Wednesday, 6 March 2013 21:26 (3 months ago) Permalink

in Arkansas today the legislature overrode the governor's veto of ~~some of~~ the most egregious abortion restrictions in the country

― available for sporting events (underrated aerosmith bootlegs I have owned), Wednesday, 6 March 2013 21:31 (3 months ago) Permalink

christ. on the bright side, have to figure that'll be enjoined pretty quickly

― k3vin k., Wednesday, 6 March 2013 21:40 (3 months ago) Permalink

reading my post again i don't mean to sound so critical of the woman - obviously the decision is hers and i recognize that many of the people who decide to be surrogates are poor. just interesting in the sense that it's the kind of thing you probably think about if you're a law student but i've never seen a news story like it before

― k3vin k., Wednesday, 6 March 2013 21:42 (3 months ago) Permalink

classic

― Gunoka Cuntles (Matt P), Wednesday, 6 March 2013 21:44 (3 months ago) Permalink

that cnn story disgusted me even though i am not against aborting a fetus with severe health problems, i don't blame the lady for refusing if she didn't want to. i don't feel good about people paying other people to carry a baby. i kind of blame anyone who does it for not seeing how it could turn bad. and $20k is not enough.

― veryupsetmom (harbl), Wednesday, 6 March 2013 22:36 (3 months ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=18889946

wow this is awesome

― k3vin k., Saturday, 6 April 2013 14:44 (2 months ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.