Woman denied abortion dies in Galway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennocelt

You have heard of FF right? This is the country that voted in bent bertie twice!!!

---

Eh... three times... 1997, vomit, 2002, vomit, 2007, vomit!

Does anyone know how much (in the last few weeks) has been paid out to bondholders? Or anything else of interest happening in Ireland? I find it interesting that the country is convulsing in this and there is a cleft between the so-called "liberal" and "conservative" groups in the country, yet (as stated in an earlier post), where is the fury over FG/Lab continuing the destruction of the country and where are the pitchforks for the laughing louts of Anglo?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennocelt

You have heard of FF right? This is the country that voted in bent bertie twice!!!

---

Ha, indeed, although I think it's just too convenient and easy to dismiss those with whom we might disagree as stupid zombie idiots.

I see my former president at St. Columb's College in Derry, Eamon Martin, made the RTÉ headlines this morning calling on ministers to reconsider supporting today's proposed passage of the bill: http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0710/461...n-legislation/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ped_ped

-OR-
2. we're facilitating unjust deaths

...

Pro-Choice: 'Yes, we're facilitating the destruction of life. But we don't believe that life starts from conception. The foetus is not a human, so your argument is invalid.' (But of course admitting the destruction of a foetus - whatever they believe that means - angers a still-very-conservative older generation, so that's a no-no.)

---

Not quite. The bill doesn't propose to devolve rights of full bodily autonomy to the pregnant woman; not even if there is a mere risk to her general health. A termination will be facilitated only if it can be proven that there is a real and substantial risk to her life as a result of the pregnancy. The ethos of the bill is essentially restrictive with narrow-ranging conditional provisions.

Personally, I don't think the legislation goes far enough and am in complete agreement with bennocelt when he says, "Whatever a woman wants to do with her body that's her business".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

I think what I find problematic is your sweeping dismissal of a significant swathe of the population as stupid zombie idiots.

---

Not a significant swathe at all. Just a small number of people who blindly swallow and parrot nonsensical propaganda.

And worse than these are the people manipulating them with this propaganda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

The issue of abortion, however, is a moral one with no "right" or "wrong" answer. Anything can be subjectively dismissed as nonsense in such an argument if it diverges from one's personal moral perspective.

---

I'm not talking about abortion, I'm talking about deliberately misrepresenting the arguments of pro-choice advocates, as well as the scientific evidence regarding abortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

.
Someone had to form such an opinion independently.

---

I don't think so - they deliberately push points to extremes to make the propaganda more powerful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spudulika

Does anyone know how much (in the last few weeks) has been paid out to bondholders? Or anything else of interest happening in Ireland? I find it interesting that the country is convulsing in this and there is a cleft between the so-called "liberal" and "conservative" groups in the country, yet (as stated in an earlier post), where is the fury over FG/Lab continuing the destruction of the country and where are the pitchforks for the laughing louts of Anglo?

---

I think the problem people have with rallying against what FF did to the country and what FG/Lab are continuing to do is that they simply don't know where to start. You can get massively angry about cuts to special needs but then you also should be massively angry about cuts to pensions whilst also being massively angry about bankers not being jailed whilst also being massively angry about ministerial wages whilst also being massively angry about expense accounts and so on until you just lock yourself in a room and hate absolutely everyone that has every lived.

With the abortion debate it's pretty simple to know yourself what side you're on, be it a full on nutcase saying rosaries at the gates of Dail Eireann, someone who thinks abortions should be available for things like rape & serious foetal abnormalities or someone who believes it's up to a woman to decide for herself. That level of clarity isn't there for the anger about the banking crisis because it's hard to understand in your own mind what you actually feel, let alone express it.

Plus the media stoke up the flames of the abortion debate a lot more than they do the banking crisis. You only need look at places like The Journal and their 8 articles a day on abortion, all saying the same thing, to see that all they see is hits & shares in this story. That's why they'll have someone on from Youth Defence to spout their gibberish and troll the pro-choicers or put something up about the Church saying abortion is pure evil.

I've been on loads of pro-choice marches and rallies in the past year and I can guarantee you there will be some level of violence at one of them or at a pro-life rally within the coming months. Just two weeks ago I was at one outside the Youth Defence office and some of them walked into the middle of it hoping to get shoved, some of the YD guys in particular looked like they were going to kick off at any second. Whatever about holding a belief that abortion is killing a baby but I can't understand how people are falling in behind a group like YD and why the media are acting so irresponsibly as to have given them such a platform over the past few months. This is a group who have a very odd history, are funded by the Tea Party section of America and have acted violently in the past. When this debate moves on this summer from the Protection of Life Bill to wanting a referendum on expanding abortion rights for women I can see there being problems, I can't see the likes of YD not losing their collective minds over it.

I actually wouldn't be surprised if Youth Defence sent in people to a pro-choice march to pretend to be pro-choice and attack any counter demonstration they could set up, they're that level of psycho

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

I actually wouldn't be surprised if Youth Defence sent in people to a pro-choice march to pretend to be pro-choice and attack any counter demonstration they could set up, they're that level of psycho

---

Apparently they had a few dodgy member outside the dail last night that are in the irish national party or whatever small fascist party is on the go these days

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DannyInvincible

Not quite. The bill doesn't propose to devolve rights of full bodily autonomy to the pregnant woman; not even if there is a mere risk to her general health. A termination will be facilitated only if it can be proven that there is a real and substantial risk to her life as a result of the pregnancy. The ethos of the bill is essentially restrictive with narrow-ranging conditional provisions.

Personally, I don't think the legislation goes far enough and am in complete agreement with bennocelt when he says, "Whatever a woman wants to do with her body that's her business".

---

I was referring to the larger general abortion question rather than this specific bill (should've been more clear, considering the thread).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bennocelt

Apparently they had a few dodgy member outside the dail last night that are in the irish national party or whatever small fascist party is on the go these days

---

This is the same group that smeared their own offices with faeces to get some positive PR for themselves so anything is possible with them.

Good bit of reading in here on their ties with American extremists, neo-nazis and on their tactics. There's more you can probably still find online too but I won't post here as they rush around threatening sites that allow it with libel.

http://www.broadsheet.ie/yd.html

This is who we're allowing to dictate the debate at present, them and the tax dodging defenders of paedophilia worldwide, the Catholic Church.

There is some pretty hair raising stuff in an old Hot Press Article about them. One member was clearly a fascists and one thought the Japanese should all be killed. Oh, and the media is to blame for all the queers and general ungodliness. This link worked for me earlier, but now hits a paywall : http://www.hotpress.com/politics/fro...how_comments=1 maybe you get one freebie.. it's page 11 of the article so you'll need to click back to 1 if you can get in.

"Brian O'Domhnaill, a Fianna Fáil senator has been accused of reaching a new low after he said allowing abortions in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities would be “depriving future Special Olympics athletes of being born”."

Just wow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nigel-harps1954

"Brian O'Domhnaill, a Fianna Fáil senator has been accused of reaching a new low after he said allowing abortions in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities would be “depriving future Special Olympics athletes of being born”."

Just wow.

---

wow - link?

Here you go: http://donegalnow.com/sp/article_man...__o_domhnaill_

Yeah, in fact, we should be encouraging foetal abnormalities in order to enhance our chances of success in the Special Olympics. Free cigarettes and alcohol for all expectant mothers!

There was some discussion on fathers' rights in this thread in terms of a man having the right to essentially opt in or out of fatherhood, if I recall correctly. Anyway, I came across this article on Salon last night, written by an Anna March, who self-describes as a "deep-seated" feminist, and thought it both relevant and interesting in its conclusions and treatment of the debate: http://www.salon.com/2013/11/02/make...hoice_partner/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anna March

...

I believe that making fatherhood optional—as motherhood is—and revamping the child support system to stop requiring financial support from noncustodial parents (usually men) who want to opt out early is good for women, men, and the kids in question. In addition, we should further our support of women who choose to opt out of motherhood via abortion or adoption as well. It’s time to make parenthood a true choice, on every level.

...

First, Thornhill writes that “when informed of a partner’s pregnancy, a man should get a single, time-sensitive opportunity to choose fatherhood.” Second, by accepting, a man would assume all the responsibilities of fatherhood, but by declining he would legally be no different than a sperm donor. Finally, she suggests that for low-income families, state-funded child support should exist. In her article “Is Forced Fatherhood Fair?” for the June 12, 2013 edition of the New York Times, Laurie Shrage echoes Kerrie Thornhill’s sentiment when she opines, “In consenting to sex, neither a man nor a woman gives consent to become a parent.” She argues that if one believes that women shouldn’t be penalized for sexual activity by limiting options such as birth control, abortion, adoption, and safe haven laws (laws that provide a safe space for parents to give up babies), then men’s options shouldn’t be limited either. These writers all point out that motherhood should be a voluntary condition. Shrage and Thornhill agree that the construct that fatherhood after birth is mandatory needs to change.

...

As Thornhill argues, men should have a window of time to decide whether or not they are going to sign up for fatherhood, and after that they will either be treated like a sperm donor or be held financially liable. It’s close to parity with the choice women have—and fairness is a basic feminist value. Further, this system allows for women’s total reproductive autonomy and by doing so, we inherently advance women’s sexual and economic autonomy as well as strengthen feminism itself. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, we improve the economic safety and well-being of any resultant children by ensuring adequate state support when necessary....

---

Read a powerful article this morning making the seemingly drastic comparison between Irish women of reproductive age (or this Irish woman, specifically) and those women - "precious commodities" in the dystopian sci-fi episode of Battlestar Galactica 'The Farm' - who are forcibly hooked up to "baby-machines" and used simply as vessels or incubators to reproduce on behalf of the ruling Cylons: http://feministire.com/2014/12/18/a-...pia-for-women/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stephanie Lord

In an episode of Battlestar Galactica called “The Farm”, Starbuck gets shot during a raid on Caprica and loses consciousness. She wakes up in a hospital, where it turns out that the cylons have a lot of human women hooked up to “baby-machines”, because they can’t reproduce themselves, so they’re trying to reproduce with humans. The human women are used as incubators and the cylons are of the view that they have a duty to reproduce. The cylon doctor tells Starbuck how women of reproductive age are very “precious commodities.” The agency of the individual does not matter – they are merely vessels. Vessels do not need to consent. The women hooked up to machines for the sole purpose of reproduction are, in this case, science fiction, and it’s pretty grim.

As I type this, there is a woman who is clinically brain dead but being kept alive on life support against her family’s wishes solely due to the fact that she is pregnant. The trauma that her family is going through now does not bear thinking about. I have lost a close family member in terrible circumstances, but I cannot imagine what it must be like to endure the heart-breaking pain of deciding to switch off a life-support machine. The trauma of it is surely enormous.

A next of kin is generally legally entitled to make a decision regarding treatment where a person can no longer consent. This family has concluded that the best course of action for this woman would be to withdraw life support. The medical staff cannot grant this request due to the constitutional right to life of the unborn: the right of an early stage foetus to be gestated potentially supersedes a woman’s right to dignity in death.

The state and the law of Ireland views women as vessels. In Ireland, once we are pregnant, we are no longer agents of ourselves. We do not get to decide whether we should or should not remain pregnant. Our thoughts, our feelings, our mental health does not matter. Our ability to parent does not matter. Our poverty does not matter. Our right to die a natural death does not matter. Our dignity does not matter. Our physical health does not matter, because you must be at risk of death to have an abortion. This is the outworking of the 8th Amendment. The state is unapologetic in this. The only time in which a pregnancy may be ended lawfully through termination is when there is a risk to a pregnant person’s life. The life of the foetus is what matters: continuing the pregnancy at all costs is what matters. If a pregnant woman is deemed to be suicidal, and like Ms. Y, wants an abortion, the pregnancy will be ended not through termination, but by an early caesarean once it is viable. To the state, ultimately, we are simply wombs with irrelevant thoughts attached.

The woman on life support in Mullingar, due to being clinically brain dead after suffering brain trauma, is being treated as an incubator for her foetus. There are people arguing for her to be kept alive for months so that her foetus may be born, and then turn the life support off – for them, she serves no purpose beyond this pregnancy. Her family now intend going to court to ask, in the name of compassion and human dignity, that her life support machine be switched off. There is no predicting what the courts will decide.

...

---

Whilst it certainly offers a strikingly grim image of the state of reproductive rights in modern-day Ireland, perhaps the comparison is not so drastic, after all.

At the time of posting the above, I don't think I had quite grasped the full reality and utterly horrific nature of this situation, but I've been back in Ireland two days now for Christmas and it has become very much apparent to me through the extensive coverage. I actually found it upsetting reading through this fairly descriptive piece earlier: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-30859431.html

Mere embarrassment for ourselves as a nation in response would seem almost shallow or flippant to me, as if not treating this seriously enough. I don't even know if talking about "reproductive rights" in this context is appropriate. I feel ashamed that this is happening in Ireland right now. Out of all the unintended consequences of the constitutional amendment enshrining the equal right to life of the unborn and mother, this must surely be one of the most dire and abhorrent. This case is so unusual, even the bishops are horrified by it, but this is the law they fought to have put in place! I can only hope the court can find a way to make the correct decision for the deceased woman, her poor family and this country on Friday.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1226/668...nt-woman-case/

Quote:

---

The High Court has ruled that doctors may cease life support treatments for body of a pregnant woman who has been clinically dead for weeks as there is no reasonable prospect her child will survive.

---

The right decision, thank goodness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by osarusan

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1226/668...nt-woman-case/


The right decision, thank goodness.

---

And just as importantly, the rights of the child were considered and taken into account. As case law accumulates, hospitals and doctors will have more certainty about the legal position, and will be able to make decisions without going to the courts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by White Horse

And just as importantly, the rights of the child were considered and taken into account. As case law accumulates, hospitals and doctors will have more certainty about the legal position, and will be able to make decisions without going to the courts.

---

You'd like to think legislators would try and get ahead of matters rather than wait for case law (and possibly further avoidable distressing scenarios) to develop.

What might have happened had the medical experts and court felt that there was a significant chance the unborn would have survived with health? Might the deceased woman still be hooked up to the life-support machine?