Jump to content

...and yes


Ulysses

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Gards said:

It's not for me to determine.  It's for the women to decide.

And just to clarify.  It's for women to decide n all fields....government, medical, social.  I can't believe men can ever have a real understanding of this situation so it isn't for us to decide on behalf of all females.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Geoff Kilpatrick

    33

  • Ulysses

    19

  • ri Alban

    12

  • i8hibsh

    9

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Geoff Kilpatrick
3 minutes ago, Gards said:

And just to clarify.  It's for women to decide n all fields....government, medical, social.  I can't believe men can ever have a real understanding of this situation so it isn't for us to decide on behalf of all females.

Well I disagree. In the example I gave at 36 weeks, that child is fully capable of surviving on its own even if the mother doesn't want it and that child has the right to life. It is therefore up to legislators to determine at some point where that life or potential life needs to be protected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main problem with abortion time limits is that medical science is progressing quickly and that babies can survive and develop normally at ever earlier stages of development in the womb.

In fact, the current abortion limit of 24 weeks is roughly the same period that a premature newborn can survive at.

 

Having said that, detection of pregnancy is also improving, so that women know they are pregnant from an earlier stage.

Also, detection of birth defect is improving and problems can be identified faster and at a far earlier stage of development.

 

All of this means that although the abortion time limit should perhaps be lowered, women have far earlier warnings of serious problem with the fetus and will still have roughly the same amount of time to make decisions on possible abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
10 minutes ago, Cade said:

The main problem with abortion time limits is that medical science is progressing quickly and that babies can survive and develop normally at ever earlier stages of development in the womb.

In fact, the current abortion limit of 24 weeks is roughly the same period that a premature newborn can survive at.

 

Having said that, detection of pregnancy is also improving, so that women know they are pregnant from an earlier stage.

Also, detection of birth defect is improving and problems can be identified faster and at a far earlier stage of development.

 

All of this means that although the abortion time limit should perhaps be lowered, women have far earlier warnings of serious problem with the fetus and will still have roughly the same amount of time to make decisions on possible abortion.

Absolutely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maple Leaf
9 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Well I disagree. In the example I gave at 36 weeks, that child is fully capable of surviving on its own even if the mother doesn't want it and that child has the right to life. It is therefore up to legislators to determine at some point where that life or potential life needs to be protected.

 

Yes, as long as they listen to the medical professionals and not the clerics when they make that determination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Francis Albert

Nice article in the Guardian today in which Irish author Anne Enright profusely (in fact almost gushingly) thanks Britain for its role in enabling Irish women over many decades to escape from the Irish state's ban on abortion. "Thank you Britain. You were there for Irish women". It is rare these days to read anything (particularly in the Guardian) which is so positive about Britain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sir Vladimir of Romanov
3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Nice article in the Guardian today in which Irish author Anne Enright profusely (in fact almost gushingly) thanks Britain for its role in enabling Irish women over many decades to escape from the Irish state's ban on abortion. "Thank you Britain. You were there for Irish women". It is rare these days to read anything (particularly in the Guardian) which is so positive about Britain.

 

Give it time... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye the UK will happily support Irish women but not Northern Irish women, as it may upset the dinosaurs in the DUP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

King Of The Cat Cafe
32 minutes ago, Cade said:

Aye the UK will happily support Irish women but not Northern Irish women, as it may upset the dinosaurs in the DUP.

 

 

"Northern Ireland is as British as Finchley", says the DUP.  But not when it comes to same-sex marriage or abortion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
1 hour ago, Cade said:

Aye the UK will happily support Irish women but not Northern Irish women, as it may upset the dinosaurs in the DUP.

Hmmm. Must be a different Britain who now gives free abortions on the NHS now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
59 minutes ago, King Of The Cat Cafe said:

 

 

"Northern Ireland is as British as Finchley", says the DUP.  But not when it comes to same-sex marriage or abortion...

Not a DUPper quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Its naebdies business but the mother and father, and their conscience.

True.

 

But if we are to facilitate abortion through public health then it becomes a matter for everyone.

 

As other posters have said the science is evolving.

The child at very early stages feels all sorts of physical and emotional responses.

 

My problem with abortion is when do we consider the child in the womb as having rights of protection.

It's not a question for me of men's views over woman's.

 

It's a question of ending a life and where the justification is.

Disability ?

 

So would we end the life of a child born because of this?

 

Would we end a life of a 5 year old because it was not wanted by the mother ?

 

I'm not judging but it is for me troubling that because a child is not outside the womb it has no rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

King Of The Cat Cafe
2 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Not a DUPper quote.

 

 

Originally, no; but it's what goes on in their minds.  And you know it.

 

Anyway, I will leave you with this one, which  is a DUPer quote:  "Line dancing is as sinful as any other type of dancing, with its sexual gestures and touching. It is an incitement to lust."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
25 minutes ago, King Of The Cat Cafe said:

 

 

Originally, no; but it's what goes on in their minds.  And you know it.

 

Anyway, I will leave you with this one, which  is a DUPer quote:  "Line dancing is as sinful as any other type of dancing, with its sexual gestures and touching. It is an incitement to lust."

Oh indeed. A better one was rock music being the tool of the devil. That was ELO! 

 

:vrface:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik
22 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Well I disagree. In the example I gave at 36 weeks, that child is fully capable of surviving on its own even if the mother doesn't want it and that child has the right to life. It is therefore up to legislators to determine at some point where that life or potential life needs to be protected.

 

One of the nice things one discovers with a dive into the data is that late term abortions almost never, ever happen except in cases where there are serious medical concerns. Does the child have a right to life if it imposes a 10% chance that its birth will kill the mother? What about a 5% chance? 2%?

 

Women who get abortions are not monsters -- they wrestle with the ethical decisions behind them, and for many of them the decision is heart-rending. Keep the decision between women and doctors and in 9,999 times out of 10,000, you'll get an ethically sound decision, because people take it very seriously. Certainly you'll get a far better share of ethical decisions than if legislators start trying to impose arbitrary limits based on statistical niceities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
10 minutes ago, Ugly American said:

 

One of the nice things one discovers with a dive into the data is that late term abortions almost never, ever happen except in cases where there are serious medical concerns. Does the child have a right to life if it imposes a 10% chance that its birth will kill the mother? What about a 5% chance? 2%?

 

Women who get abortions are not monsters -- they wrestle with the ethical decisions behind them, and for many of them the decision is heart-rending. Keep the decision between women and doctors and in 9,999 times out of 10,000, you'll get an ethically sound decision, because people take it very seriously. Certainly you'll get a far better share of ethical decisions than if legislators start trying to impose arbitrary limits based on statistical niceities.

I'm not disagreeing but I was using a deliberately extreme example to make the point that legislation and protections are needed across the piece because of one life and one potential life being involved. A blase attitude might be ok for an individual but it cannot be for a lawmaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson

Of possible interest given the discussion above is that in Canada, there are no legal term limits on abortion at all. I can't quite get my head around it, but it's true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik
40 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I'm not disagreeing but I was using a deliberately extreme example to make the point that legislation and protections are needed across the piece because of one life and one potential life being involved. A blase attitude might be ok for an individual but it cannot be for a lawmaker.

 

But given the medical complexities involved, I'm not sure legislation has any role to play here.

 

Between the Hippocratic Oath and the vanishingly small possibility that any woman would carry a pregnancy to 36 weeks and then suddenly be like, "nah, don't bother with a c-section, just kill it," I think the best result would be for legislators to sit on their hands until such a time as a clear and present need for legislation became apparent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maple Leaf
1 hour ago, shaun.lawson said:

Of possible interest given the discussion above is that in Canada, there are no legal term limits on abortion at all. I can't quite get my head around it, but it's true. 

 

I didn't know that. 

 

But what I do know is that debate about abortion has virtually disappeared from public discourse in this country.  It has become a non-issue .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jake said:

True.

 

But if we are to facilitate abortion through public health then it becomes a matter for everyone.

 

As other posters have said the science is evolving.

The child at very early stages feels all sorts of physical and emotional responses.

 

My problem with abortion is when do we consider the child in the womb as having rights of protection.

It's not a question for me of men's views over woman's.

 

It's a question of ending a life and where the justification is.

Disability ?

 

So would we end the life of a child born because of this?

 

Would we end a life of a 5 year old because it was not wanted by the mother ?

 

I'm not judging but it is for me troubling that because a child is not outside the womb it has no rights.

True, I'm just a wee bit sickened with this jubilation over this and now the sights are set on NI.( Don't get me wrong, this shouldn't be a devolved issue, a one size fits all) But since it is, it's for NI's government to decide. Oh and if there's one party who should butt out it's mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
1 hour ago, Ugly American said:

 

But given the medical complexities involved, I'm not sure legislation has any role to play here.

 

Between the Hippocratic Oath and the vanishingly small possibility that any woman would carry a pregnancy to 36 weeks and then suddenly be like, "nah, don't bother with a c-section, just kill it," I think the best result would be for legislators to sit on their hands until such a time as a clear and present need for legislation became apparent.

I fundamentally disagree with you on that. If you bring the Hippocratic oath into play as your failsafe you are in all sorts of legal minefields, potentially.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik
11 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I fundamentally disagree with you on that. If you bring the Hippocratic oath into play as your failsafe you are in all sorts of legal minefields, potentially.

 

The take the Oath out of it. I maintain that trying to find a legislative answer to the problem of a "right to life" at 36 weeks is a solution looking for a problem. 

 

We don't have special laws against using banana-flavored gelatin as an assault weapon not because we think people should assault other people with banana flavored gelatin, but because it's never been a problem. Likewise, capricious, elective late-term abortions are about as common as assault with banana-flavored gelatin. Because of that we don't need to figure out what the law against it should be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
4 hours ago, Ugly American said:

 

The take the Oath out of it. I maintain that trying to find a legislative answer to the problem of a "right to life" at 36 weeks is a solution looking for a problem. 

 

We don't have special laws against using banana-flavored gelatin as an assault weapon not because we think people should assault other people with banana flavored gelatin, but because it's never been a problem. Likewise, capricious, elective late-term abortions are about as common as assault with banana-flavored gelatin. Because of that we don't need to figure out what the law against it should be.

No one is arguing that they are not rare. Rare or not though, it fundamentally implies, in your world, that the child has NO rights. That's why I fundamentally disagree and that's why legislation is needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/27/2018 at 15:57, Ulysses said:

 

The other thing that's really positive about how we got to this point is the way we did it.  For people with an interest in how political systems work and how to build consensus on complex issues, Ireland's approach to this issue is worth reading up on, IMO.

 

 

Getting back to this point for a moment, here's an article which explains why Ireland's approach to this issue was so successful.  I frequently disagree with the writer (Fintan O'Toole) on issues, but his analysis of political processes and structures is generally on the money.

 

Guardian opinion: If only Brexit had been run like Ireland’s referendum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
27 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

Getting back to this point for a moment, here's an article which explains why Ireland's approach to this issue was so successful.  I frequently disagree with the writer (Fintan O'Toole) on issues, but his analysis of political processes and structures is generally on the money.

 

Guardian opinion: If only Brexit had been run like Ireland’s referendum

I agreed with the article up to a point. What is often forgotten that pre referendum, Cameron had a list of "concessions" on European integration (leave aside that they worthless without a treaty alteration for now) but the Brexit debate had absolutely no focus on this whatsoever and that was down to both sides.

 

Where I do agree is that a fundamental debate on immigration would help the UK rather than the cries of "wacist" on one side and the Tommy Robinson bullshit on the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

 

Getting back to this point for a moment, here's an article which explains why Ireland's approach to this issue was so successful.  I frequently disagree with the writer (Fintan O'Toole) on issues, but his analysis of political processes and structures is generally on the money.

 

Guardian opinion: If only Brexit had been run like Ireland’s referendum

There is a lot to disagree with here.

Now I know he 8th was more than just an abortion issue but it was central.

 

In this article it was described as shameful images of abortion used in the campaign.

 

This is my issue.

Why is that shameful?

Why is an unborn child's life which has been ended denied the right to be defended as shameful ?

 

This article is far from on the money.

And the whole question of abortion needs to imo be looked first and foremost from the premise that a human life begins from when.

 

Surely regardless of the wider points of the 8th this question was central and people should be aware of the facts.

 

So for me this article was far away from on the money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, jake said:

In this article it was described as shameful images of abortion used in the campaign.

 

 

 

That is nowhere to be found in the article.  The word shameful does not appear in the article once.

 

What was said was "the deliberate use of shocking imagery (posters of aborted foetuses outside maternity hospitals)".

 

I appreciate that you're a bit ignorant of the facts, but in Ireland, maternity hospitals are used for three principal purposes - having babies, treating women who have had miscarriages, and treating women who have significant gynaecological problems.  Therefore - and read this bit carefully, jake - the people being targeted by the aborted foetus pictures were women on their way to have babies, or to be treated after losing babies, or to be treated for significant gynaecological problems.  Treating those women in that way is vile and shocking.

 

Your lack of ability to analyse what's in front of you is letting you down again, as it always does.

 

Read the article again - and again and again if you have to - and try to understand what the writer actually wrote.

 

Edited by Ulysses
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I agreed with the article up to a point. What is often forgotten that pre referendum, Cameron had a list of "concessions" on European integration (leave aside that they worthless without a treaty alteration for now) but the Brexit debate had absolutely no focus on this whatsoever and that was down to both sides.

 

Where I do agree is that a fundamental debate on immigration would help the UK rather than the cries of "wacist" on one side and the Tommy Robinson bullshit on the other.

 

 

We had a plan and a process for civic engagement, and we didn't do winner takes all - which is pretty remarkable for a referendum with only a Yes or No choice.  The British government had no plan or process for civic engagement for its constitutional debate on Brexit, just as the SNP had no plan or process for civic engagement for its constitutional debate on independence.

 

It might not always work, but it's a good basis to work from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watt-Zeefuik
5 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

No one is arguing that they are not rare. Rare or not though, it fundamentally implies, in your world, that the child has NO rights. That's why I fundamentally disagree and that's why legislation is needed.

 

No, that is not at all what I've argued. I've argued for legislative restraint. Lack of explicitly designating legislation does not mean lack of rights, at least in my understanding of the legal traditions at play here.

 

If the legislature must step in, it could simply require a determination that the abortion be medically indicated by a doctor. Designation of explicit rights in the place fo procedures would largely confuse the issue and lead to more of the same confounding situations generated by Amendment 8, albeit fewer of them. Designation of proper procedures and determinations would allow for a much clearer decision path, which is critical in such a heart-wrenching and personal decision place.

 

To get deeper into the weeds, the invocation of rights here in the liberal tradition is bound to be problematic because the liberal tradition has always been concerned with "individuals," and a mother and fetus defy that category at all points. The fetus's life is inextricably tied to its obligate relationship with the mother -- it cannot live without causing enormous changes in the mother's bodily health. Because of that, for the mother to have any kind of bodily autonomy, she must, within some constrained parameters, have the ability to preserve her own life, possibly at the expense of the life of the fetus. No, that's not a pleasant thought, but that reality is the reason why the Enlightenment legal tradition of the rights of individuals is entirely inappropriate to apply to this situation. Pragmatism and compassion should be the order of the day, not legal caprice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
1 hour ago, Ugly American said:

 

No, that is not at all what I've argued. I've argued for legislative restraint. Lack of explicitly designating legislation does not mean lack of rights, at least in my understanding of the legal traditions at play here.

 

If the legislature must step in, it could simply require a determination that the abortion be medically indicated by a doctor. Designation of explicit rights in the place fo procedures would largely confuse the issue and lead to more of the same confounding situations generated by Amendment 8, albeit fewer of them. Designation of proper procedures and determinations would allow for a much clearer decision path, which is critical in such a heart-wrenching and personal decision place.

 

To get deeper into the weeds, the invocation of rights here in the liberal tradition is bound to be problematic because the liberal tradition has always been concerned with "individuals," and a mother and fetus defy that category at all points. The fetus's life is inextricably tied to its obligate relationship with the mother -- it cannot live without causing enormous changes in the mother's bodily health. Because of that, for the mother to have any kind of bodily autonomy, she must, within some constrained parameters, have the ability to preserve her own life, possibly at the expense of the life of the fetus. No, that's not a pleasant thought, but that reality is the reason why the Enlightenment legal tradition of the rights of individuals is entirely inappropriate to apply to this situation. Pragmatism and compassion should be the order of the day, not legal caprice. 

Cool. I take your point but I am still of the opinion that the current compromise and time limit structure is still the "least bad" outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/05/2018 at 00:23, Ulysses said:

 

 

That is nowhere to be found in the article.  The word shameful does not appear in the article once.

 

What was said was "the deliberate use of shocking imagery (posters of aborted foetuses outside maternity hospitals)".

 

I appreciate that you're a bit ignorant of the facts, but in Ireland, maternity hospitals are used for three principal purposes - having babies, treating women who have had miscarriages, and treating women who have significant gynaecological problems.  Therefore - and read this bit carefully, jake - the people being targeted by the aborted foetus pictures were women on their way to have babies, or to be treated after losing babies, or to be treated for significant gynaecological problems.  Treating those women in that way is vile and shocking.

 

Your lack of ability to analyse what's in front of you is letting you down again, as it always does.

 

Read the article again - and again and again if you have to - and try to understand what the writer actually wrote.

 

Point taken.

 

I did try to not be confrontational on this .

And tried to express the trouble I had with this subject.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 30/05/2018 at 00:23, Ulysses said:

 

 

That is nowhere to be found in the article.  The word shameful does not appear in the article once.

 

What was said was "the deliberate use of shocking imagery (posters of aborted foetuses outside maternity hospitals)".

 

I appreciate that you're a bit ignorant of the facts, but in Ireland, maternity hospitals are used for three principal purposes - having babies, treating women who have had miscarriages, and treating women who have significant gynaecological problems.  Therefore - and read this bit carefully, jake - the people being targeted by the aborted foetus pictures were women on their way to have babies, or to be treated after losing babies, or to be treated for significant gynaecological problems.  Treating those women in that way is vile and shocking.

 

Your lack of ability to analyse what's in front of you is letting you down again, as it always does.

 

Read the article again - and again and again if you have to - and try to understand what the writer actually wrote.

 

He didn't say it said shameful, just his description. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jake said:

Point taken.

 

I did try to not be confrontational on this .

And tried to express the trouble I had with this subject.

 

What'd you do Jake, shite in uly's fridge.

Edited by ri Alban
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my reading Jake did say in this article it was described as shameful, it actually didn't. I don't think he had any nastiness aforethought, but it was rightly pointed out he erred. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone
On 5/27/2018 at 11:35, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Given they can barely set a budget for NI, I can't see it somehow. Abortion isn't a human right, despite what Amnesty say.

 

Disagree. A woman's choice over what happens to her body (or man's choice) is very much a human right imo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
3 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Disagree. A woman's choice over what happens to her body (or man's choice) is very much a human right imo. 

I was referring to international charters on human rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphonseCapone
10 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

I was referring to international charters on human rights.

 

Ah right I see. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's devolved to NI.

 

It would be wrong for Westminster to impose laws on a devolved assembly.

 

It's for the people of NI to pressure their useless politicians into changing the law.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff Kilpatrick
1 hour ago, Cade said:

It's devolved to NI.

 

It would be wrong for Westminster to impose laws on a devolved assembly.

 

It's for the people of NI to pressure their useless politicians into changing the law.

 

 

The first thing they should do is stop paying them.

 

Then they should call new elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well one way around the Stormont shambles is to threaten to impose direct rule on the Province, hinting strongly that we'll impose a harmonization of abortion laws on them.

 

Maybe that would drag the bigoted dinosaurs back to the negotiating table and get things moving in NI again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...