Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Abortion

1242526272830»

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Mr.S wrote: »
    :eek: was this recently or a good few years ago?!

    1992, so (jesus I feel old...) 20 years ago now.

    I have a major problem with something as fundamentally personal as a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body being put to a popular vote.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    bluewolf wrote: »
    they did hold a vote for the life threatening clause after the supreme court yoke
    we said yes
    they still can't be arsed legislating for it
    Really? Whatever about my stance, I find it hard to believe that a woman whose life is in danger would not be allowed access to one? That's quite bad tbh.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Ulises Deep Geisha


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Really? Whatever about my stance, I find it hard to believe that a woman whose life is in danger would not be allowed access to one? That's quite bad tbh.

    "Constitutional Referendum 2002

    A further referendum was held in 2002 on the Twenty-fifth Amendment, which would have removed the threat of suicide as a grounds for legal abortion, but it too failed to enact any regulatory changes."

    It's not illegal but since it's not legislated they won't do it


  • Moderators Posts: 51,885 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    B0jangles wrote: »
    1992, so (jesus I feel old...) 20 years ago now.
    Just to be clear, that referendum was to determine if the threat of suicide was grounds to allow an abortion. The voters said no allowing an abortion if the mother is threatening to kill herself unless she gets an abortion.

    EDIT: I misread how the referendum text was worded.

    The Twelfth Amendment proposed that the possibility of suicide was not a sufficient threat to justify an abortion. The proposal was rejected.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Really? Whatever about my stance, I find it hard to believe that a woman whose life is in danger would not be allowed access to one? That's quite bad tbh.

    *Looks at economy.*
    *Looks at education system.*
    *Looks at health care system.*
    *Looks at other signs that show general incompetence*


    Not that hard to believe. . . :(


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,939 ✭✭✭mardybumbum


    Mr.S wrote: »
    tbh, if we offer the morning after pill, I don't see the problem with abortion.

    The morning after pill is a contraceptive, not an abortifacient.
    Totally different.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    The morning after pill is a contraceptive, not an abortifacient.
    Totally different.
    True, it wont undo an established pregnancy. Though I think it just stops implantation as opposed to fertilisation? I've never had a problem with the MAP - restricting access to this would only result in more unwanted pregnancies, which would be pointless. I can see the argument though if someone is taking the point of fertilisation as the "no going back" point (not that I do)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    koth wrote: »
    Just to be clear, that referendum was to determine if the threat of suicide was grounds to allow an abortion. The voters said no allowing an abortion if the mother is threatening to kill herself unless she gets an abortion.

    But if someone is suicidal isn't that classed as a risk to the mothers life? At least, it should be.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,939 ✭✭✭mardybumbum


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    The morning after pill is a contraceptive, not an abortifacient.
    Totally different.
    True, it wont undo an established pregnancy. Though I think it just stops implantation as opposed to fertilisation? I've never had a problem with the MAP - restricting access to this would only result in more unwanted pregnancies, which would be pointless. I can see the argument though if someone is taking the point of fertilisation as the "no going back" point (not that I do)

    There has been no evidence to suggest that ECPs prevent implantation. Their MOA is to prevent fertilization either by inhibiting ovulation or increasing cervical mucus.
    What other period could someone take as the "no going back" point out of interest?


  • Moderators Posts: 51,885 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    But if someone is suicidal isn't that classed as a risk to the mothers life? At least, it should be.

    My bad. I got the details backwards. the 1992 referendum was to insert an amendment that proposed that the possibility of suicide was not a sufficient threat to justify an abortion. The proposal was rejected.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    There has been no evidence to suggest that ECPs prevent implantation. Their MOA is to prevent fertilization either by inhibiting ovulation or increasing cervical mucus.
    What other period could someone take as the "no going back" point out of interest?
    ok but either way they wont undo an established pregnancy? ie; one that has implanted within the uterus?

    I dont actually know what point would be good to take tbh! Obviously a just fertilised zygote is not the same as a 22 week old fetus. Imo the "point" (as idealistic as it sounds) would be somewhere in between, but where? :confused: I will put my hands up and say I dont know.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Mr.S wrote: »
    tbh, if we offer the morning after pill, I don't see the problem with abortion.

    Why doesn't the government just hold a vote on it? Surely if the majority are in favor of abortion, then it should be allowed.

    Personally, I think Ireland should offer abortions in any case up upto an X amount of weeks.

    If women want to get an abortion, there really isn't anything stopping them from taking a ~1-2hour trip to the UK and getting it done, so why not just offer it here?

    There's a problem with X amount of weeks though. How do you know when to cut off?

    There's no X point during the pregnancy when life begins. Biologically the foetus is already alive. It's already growing and developing within the womb.

    As I've mentioned as well X points are entirely arbitrary:
    The argument on putting an X week rate is as arbitrary as the juggling 8914 apples up Mt Snowdon on a BMX point of development. It assumes something only becomes alive at an X point of development despite the fact that it has been biologically alive long before that point. The X point of development argument is flawed and it is entirely arbitrary.

    The question of when life becomes meaningful to X or Y person is a philosophical issue. It's not a question of whether or on a factual level something is alive or dead.

    It's conceivable that people mightn't regard someone elses life as meaningful, but that doesn't mean that people should have the liberty to kill another life.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    There's a problem with X amount of weeks though. How do you know when to cut off?

    That depends entirely on how you define Human Life in the context of Human Rights and how you then apply that to the fetus.

    For example if you hinge human rights around the faculty of human conciousness then clearly your cut off will be reliant on that. Any point in the development when you can be sure human conciousness has not arisen in ANY form is certainly a point where abortion would be ok.

    Once it starts to form in some way or another we enter a grey area where some debate is possible, but if it is entirely absent in any way then I do not see the debate.

    At 16 weeks for example not only is there no reason to think that human conciousness exists in any form... the structures and activity we associate with it have not even formed.

    An analogy I use often is to radio. At 16 weeks not only is there no radio waves being broadcast (conciousness) the transmitter tower has not even been built yet.

    That is the kind of discussion we need to have. Not the kind you want us to have which is just throwing "god" around and accusing everyone of "killing lives". Your kind of talk on here is propaganda with no substance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 851 ✭✭✭PrincessLola


    philologos wrote: »
    PrincessLola: Do we really need that kind of nonsense or can we just discuss this in a reasonable manner?

    Do you not see at all why people might have serious concerns about people destroying human life as a matter of choice?

    Did you.. even read my post? The person in question (Davion Putrid Pint) says they are pro-choice, it does not make sense.


  • Registered Users Posts: 851 ✭✭✭PrincessLola


    Are you actually asking why I think abortion isn't desirable? Really? REALLY? On the offchance that you're not just trying to wind me up:

    1) Abortion is free on the NHS. I can think of many better ways to spend that money, such as on cancer drugs and other treatments. Treatment is already rationed for other preventable conditions caused by lifestyle choices. People are dying all the time because they can't get drugs for a condition they had no choice whatsoever in developing.
    2) Women having abortions take up resources that could be used in other ways.
    3) Abortion can be psychologically scarring for some women

    Okay, I think I get you now. You are mad that abortions cost tax payer money (except, Irish women don't get free NHS abortions, but never mind)
    Thats a pretty flimsy excuse to hate something And I absolutely do not buy it, lots of health procedures cost tax payer money in the UK, many are less essential than abortions.

    You're argument also pivots on the point that abortions are preventable, sure they are. So are lots of cancers, obesity, heart disease, many cases of broken bones.
    I bet if you told people they would not receive medical care if they ever hurt themselves, they'd be much more careful for the rest of their lives, in fact I bet if you made littering punishable by life imprisonment no-one would ever litter again. No more stupid safety net! Happy days! See the logic?

    Psychologically scarring for some women, yes. But those are usually the women for whom the decision is hardest and so shouldn't concern you and your "abortion as a contraception" problem.

    Your head is so far buried in the sand that you're incapable of rational, normal thought on this issue.

    I just find this really funny. Keep 'em coming.
    You've gone from suggesting that no women takes an abortion lightly to asking what's wrong with taking abortion lightly. You do realise that?

    I guess you're right that *some* may take it extremely lightly, I admit I initially did not think it possible of other women because abortion is not something I've ever had done or would take lightly myself.
    However I still think that only a small minority would use it as contraception. And considering I do not believe a fetus to be a baby than I don't really mind, the only cause for my concern would be possible health complications from repeat abortions, which is not good.
    Except if you could read you'd say I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying 'it might be an idea to make sure you're on reliable contraception before you have sex' but that's not as dramatic, is it? So let's just pretend I said something completely different.

    Yeah, and what I'm saying is that no contraception is 100% (even the pill) and telling adults to only have sex if they are sure they want a kid is not going to work.
    It is when you're claiming no women takes abortion lightly. Funnily enough, someone who actually lives in a country where abortion is legal and knows plenty of people who have had them might just have a clearer idea of how it's viewed than someone who's read something on the internet.

    Cop on now.
    You don't know who I am or where I have lived. I have many friends in England and Scotland and have not seen what you are describing. But I can accept that it happens in some cases. Fine.
    For someone who claimed that nobody takes abortion lightly, you sure seem to.

    From an ethical and philosophical standpoint, yes I do. In the practical sense I do not I guess.
    Eh, no, because as I said, she didn't bother getting the morning-after pill. That's the least I would expect of someone who doesn't want to get pregnant. But why should she make the effort, right? It's not her fault she got pregnant, it takes two to make a baby.

    You didn't make that clear in your post. That was a mistake not taking the morning-after-pill alright, probably because she was in denial/lying to herself rather than laziness.
    Think about it, abortions can be quite uncomfortable and painful, of course she'd rather take the pill than go through with an abortion.
    Wah wah wah.

    Keep typing "wah wah wah", who knows, you might eventually prove something, or not. :pac:
    I think all women should have access to abortion. I also think that any women who thinks she's mature enough to have sex should be mature enough to protect herself from STI's and pregnancy. Cutting the abortion rate and reducing the number of STI treatments would save the country millions. Ooooh, so controversial, I know. :rolleyes:

    Yeah, I agree with this actually. I just think you're taking an absolutist stance on abortion and contraception.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Did you.. even read my post? The person in question (Davion Putrid Pint) says they are pro-choice, it does not make sense.

    Maybe I was wrong about the context, but there's no need for that kind of vitriol on this thread.


  • Posts: 0 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Ulises Deep Geisha


    philologos wrote: »
    PrincessLola: Do we really need that kind of nonsense or can we just discuss this in a reasonable manner?

    Did you.. even read my post? The person in question (Davion Putrid Pint) says they are pro-choice, it does not make sense.
    philologos wrote: »
    Maybe I was wrong about the context, but there's no need for that kind of vitriol on this thread.

    What vitriol? telling her she's posting nonsense and being unreasonable?


  • Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭Fizzlesque



    3) Abortion can be psychologically scarring for some women

    I promised myself I wouldn't get involved in this thread; when I read this comment yesterday I was tempted to respond, but managed to resist, and then when I read it for a second time (as part of Princess Lola's post) my promise to myself not to get involved weakened considerably.

    The reason I try not to get involved in the abortion debate is because while I'm 100% pro choice, when I fell pregnant 23 years ago, single, immature, emotionally damaged from an abusive childhood and with absolutely no support, I discovered I couldn't go through with my vague plan to have an abortion if the pregnancy test turned out to be positive, and opted for adoption instead and therefore it's a very emotive topic for me.

    If people think an abortion can be psychologically scarring, I'd love to know what words they'd use to describe the ever-lasting after-effects of adoption. I damn near destroyed my life by making that choice. As it is, I know I'll never fully recover from the trauma of handing my child to someone else, even though I've been able to maintain contact all along (semi open adoption: letterbox contact) and it's taken lots of counselling, years of substance (marijuana and alcohol) abuse [more counselling to deal with that] inability to form a healthy, happy relationship, severe self-isolation and loneliness [more counselling to deal with that] and the guts of 20 years for me to begin heal from the hell that is putting your child up for adoption. If you want to torture yourself till the day you die, give birth and then allow another woman to become your child's mother. If you're lucky you'll shorten your life considerably with the stress of it all :(

    Now, I know some people might argue that not all birth mothers regret their decision as deeply and as heartbreakingly as I do, but neither do all women who make the decision to abort suffer psychological trauma afterwards. I know more women who aborted and are still at peace with their decision than women who regret making that choice. Each person is different, what works for one woman won't necessarily work for the next woman: and that's why I'm pro choice. No woman should be forced to birth or to abort an unplanned baby. Unplanned doesn't always equate to unwanted. I wanted my baby very much by time she was ready to be born (even more so after she was born) but my circumstances at the time weren't conducive to my being able to give her a happy home and a happy life. Sometimes too many vital ingredients are missing.

    As a little sidenote, I'd like to add this little nugget. When I told my father I was pregnant, one of his first responses was "well, at least you didn't use contraception" :eek: :eek: :eek:

    Just a little snapshot into the Catholic Ireland I grew up in. Mad world, eh?

    Now, at this late stage of the game, I wait patiently for my daughter to decide the time is right for her to pursue some kind of a relationship with me (it's not guaranteed, but highly likely) and I can only hope she takes the view it's better to have a life (even separated from her mother) than no life at all. I wouldn't advise any woman to go down the road I chose to go down, because it's absolute and inescapable hell on earth.

    Thanks for reading - to all who've read to the end of this long and emotional post. :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 394 ✭✭RaRaRasputin


    Fizzlesque wrote: »
    Thanks for reading - to all who've read to the end of this long and emotional post. :)

    Fair play for you choosing such a painful route for yourself because it was most probably the better option for your child. By doing that you surely did the best for her as you could because you were not in the best position to bring her up. I'd say you did something very selfless by putting her up for adoption and giving her the chance to have a better life. I bet it wasn't easy and you should be a bit "proud" to have had the strength to go through with it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭Fizzlesque


    Fair play for you choosing such a painful route for yourself because it was most probably the better option for your child. By doing that you surely did the best for her as you could because you were not in the best position to bring her up. I'd say you did something very selfless by putting her up for adoption and giving her the chance to have a better life. I bet it wasn't easy and you should be a bit "proud" to have had the strength to go through with it.

    Thanks, Rasputin. I wish I could feel 'proud', instead I feel overwhelmingly guilty. It's impossible to know how things would have turned out if I hadn't made the decision I did but I'd love to be able to turn the clock back and find out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,349 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    philologos wrote: »
    Maybe I was wrong about the context, but there's no need for that kind of vitriol on this thread.

    If asking if you actually read a post before replying to it is "vitriol" in your word then you really need to grow a thicker skin.




  • Okay, I think I get you now. You are mad that abortions cost tax payer money (except, Irish women don't get free NHS abortions, but never mind)
    Thats a pretty flimsy excuse to hate something And I absolutely do not buy it, lots of health procedures cost tax payer money in the UK, many are less essential than abortions.

    I couldn't give a flying fig about Irish women. I live in the UK and pay my taxes here and most abortions here are done for free on the NHS. And so what if other things aren't essential? It doesn't mean my concerns about the cost of abortion are irrelevant.
    You're argument also pivots on the point that abortions are preventable, sure they are. So are lots of cancers, obesity, heart disease, many cases of broken bones.
    I bet if you told people they would not receive medical care if they ever hurt themselves, they'd be much more careful for the rest of their lives, in fact I bet if you made littering punishable by life imprisonment no-one would ever litter again. No more stupid safety net! Happy days! See the logic?

    Oh my God. You're AGAIN missing the point that I AM NOT SAYING ABORTIONS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED. Do you get it yet? I'm saying it would be great if people took more responsibility for their actions so fewer were needed. Just as it would be great (from a cost perspective) if people didn't smoke, drink excessively or take crazy risks doing extreme sports. Never once said such people don't deserve treatment.
    Psychologically scarring for some women, yes. But those are usually the women for whom the decision is hardest and so shouldn't concern you and your "abortion as a contraception" problem.

    I've known quite a few people who took abortion lightly when they had one and deeply regretted it later.
    I guess you're right that *some* may take it extremely lightly, I admit I initially did not think it possible of other women because abortion is not something I've ever had done or would take lightly myself.
    However I still think that only a small minority would use it as contraception. And considering I do not believe a fetus to be a baby than I don't really mind, the only cause for my concern would be possible health complications from repeat abortions, which is not good.

    So that's my whole point. You said no woman takes abortion lightly and that's just not true. Do the majority of women use it as contraception? No, most likely not, but there was a centre page article on abortion in one of the papers here about a week ago and the figures for repeat abortions were shockingly high. Look at this article from today. Sure, it's the Daily Mail and they have an agenda, but the figures are the same. And this woman's attitude, in my experience, is far from unusual.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2156163/Mother-Michelle-THREE-abortions-So-right-trying-baby.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
    Her bold decision to speak out about her abortions comes after it was revealed that the NHS spends more than £50  million a year on repeat terminations.
    One third of the 189,000 abortions carried out in England and Wales in 2010 involved women who’d had at least one before.
    Yeah, and what I'm saying is that no contraception is 100% (even the pill) and telling adults to only have sex if they are sure they want a kid is not going to work.

    And the contraception failure rates are many, many times lower than the abortion rates. I'm not advocating telling people to have sex only if they want a kid. I'm advocating telling people to use one or more methods of reliable contraception because not getting pregnant is really not that difficult.
    You didn't make that clear in your post. That was a mistake not taking the morning-after-pill alright, probably because she was in denial/lying to herself rather than laziness.
    Think about it, abortions can be quite uncomfortable and painful, of course she'd rather take the pill than go through with an abortion.

    Fairly sure it's the good old 'it won't happen to me attitude'. Fair enough for a 13 year old, but sad for a 29 year old woman who really should know better. And to clarify, I mean having this attitude about anything is ridiculous at that age, whether it's getting pregnant, getting into debt, having a car crash while driving drunk, whatever. At some stage you need to grow up and take responsibility for your actions.
    Keept think you're taking an absolutist stance on abortion and contraception.

    To be honest, I think we're pretty much on the same page at this point and now it's just nitpicking.




  • Fizzlesque wrote: »

    Now, I know some people might argue that not all birth mothers regret their decision as deeply and as heartbreakingly as I do, but neither do all women who make the decision to abort suffer psychological trauma afterwards. I know more women who aborted and are still at peace with their decision than women who regret making that choice. Each person is different, what works for one woman won't necessarily work for the next woman: and that's why I'm pro choice. No woman should be forced to birth or to abort an unplanned baby. Unplanned doesn't always equate to unwanted. I wanted my baby very much by time she was ready to be born (even more so after she was born) but my circumstances at the time weren't conducive to my being able to give her a happy home and a happy life. Sometimes too many vital ingredients are missing.

    With all due respect, that's why I said abortion can be psychologically scarring for some women. Just as adoption can be, just as having the child can be. Which is why I'm also pro-choice. And why I'm all for better education on contraception to greatly reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and STI's, which are far, far higher than they need to be. I'd certainly never put myself in the position of telling someone else what to do with an existing pregnancy. As you said, that's for only the woman to decide.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    Oh my God. You're AGAIN missing the point that I AM NOT SAYING ABORTIONS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED.
    You aren't, but it is quite likely that there are people reading the thread who would have similar arguments and use them as grounding for why abortion shouldn't be allowed. Any rebuttal to a position is best when it does more than just deal directly with what one says, but any possible arguments that can be associated/are linked in some way.
    I've known quite a few people who took abortion lightly when they had one and deeply regretted it later.
    See? Pro-lifers will cling to this type of argumentation, and when you make it for them it has to be addressed. No need to be replying reiterating your stance, the purpose of the forum is to respond to posts illuminating reasons for a particular view.

    As for this particular point, lack of freedom of choice is not conducive to ones happiness.
    So that's my whole point. You said no woman takes abortion lightly and that's just not true. Do the majority of women use it as contraception? No, most likely not, but there was a centre page article on abortion in one of the papers here about a week ago and the figures for repeat abortions were shockingly high. Look at this article from today. Sure, it's the Daily Mail and they have an agenda, but the figures are the same. And this woman's attitude, in my experience, is far from unusual.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2156163/Mother-Michelle-THREE-abortions-So-right-trying-baby.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
    She is a mother of three. Indeed, it is more often the case statistically that the mother has already given birth before.
    8. The majority of women who choose abortions have already given birth. Mothers who have had one or more children comprise over 60% of all abortions.
    Source.
    But the more important thing to me is that I think women should have freedom of choice. They ought not become incubators for 9 months against their will.




  • Pushtrak wrote: »
    You aren't, but it is quite likely that there are people reading the thread who would have similar arguments and use them as grounding for why abortion shouldn't be allowed. Any rebuttal to a position is best when it does more than just deal directly with what one says, but any possible arguments that can be associated/are linked in some way.

    See? Pro-lifers will cling to this type of argumentation, and when you make it for them it has to be addressed. No need to be replying reiterating your stance, the purpose of the forum is to respond to posts illuminating reasons for a particular view.

    And pro-lifers are entitled to their opinions too. There is a strong argument against abortion - I have no problem accepting that because I'm a person who naturally finds it easy to see all sides of an argument. I understand a lot of the pro-lifer points. I don't think it's controversial at all not to like abortion or to think people are too lax with it. I just don't think these reasons should be used to tell other people they can't have one.

    You have to remember that I'm living in a country where abortion has been legal for years, not one where the government and half the population think it's fine to force a woman to carry and give birth to a child. I've posted my views on English forums and nobody has ever batted an eyelid.
    As for this particular point, lack of freedom of choice is not conducive to ones happiness.

    I agree.
    She is a mother of three. Indeed, it is more often the case statistically that the mother has already given birth before.

    Source.
    But the more important thing to me is that I think women should have freedom of choice. They ought not become incubators for 9 months against their will.

    I agree. Doesn't mean I don't think the woman in that article is incredibly irresponsible and wasting NHS funds that could be spent on illnesses that aren't self inflicted. She admits as much herself. Would I rather she'd had all those kids? Certainly not. But I'm not happy about it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,640 ✭✭✭Pushtrak


    And pro-lifers are entitled to their opinions too. There is a strong argument against abortion -
    No, not really. Well, not if you don't put in qualifiers like duration in to pregnancy.
    You have to remember that I'm living in a country where abortion has been legal for years, not one where the government and half the population think it's fine to force a woman to carry and give birth to a child. I've posted my views on English forums and nobody has ever batted an eyelid.
    This is boards.ie so the perspective is going to be very different from the frame in which you will view the discussion. You'll have to get your head around that. Talking in an Irish forum about the differences in daily life for people where you are is interesting in terms of comparison, but the attitudes on both the pro-life and pro-choice sides will be coming from far different frames than the one you view the discussion.
    I agree. Doesn't mean I don't think the woman in that article is incredibly irresponsible and wasting NHS funds that could be spent on illnesses that aren't self inflicted. She admits as much herself. Would I rather she'd had all those kids? Certainly not. But I'm not happy about it.
    Honestly, the issue of what the health service/taxation and so on isn't something that is of relevance to me one way or the other. I'm not going to defend one position or argue against something. Economics isn't my bag and can't really think of much to contribute to the topic. I don't have a clue, for instance how much the procedure would cost.


  • Registered Users Posts: 125 ✭✭BIG BAD JOHN


    Fizzlesque wrote: »
    Thanks for reading - to all who've read to the end of this long and emotional post. :)

    Very courageous for you to post this, Fizzlesque.
    We have two grandchildren who are adopted. They are a huge joy to us and to our daughter and her husband. So far (they are respectively 8 and 4), they are happy and content with their lot. I've no doubt that as time goes on, they will have some issues to deal with.
    But I do think quite often about their natural parents, particularly their mothers and think of the great loss to them of not being able to raise their (in both instances) beautiful children.
    The circumstances were perhaps a little different than yours in that their babies were in an orphanage at the time they were adopted. So this begs the question as to whether their parents were realistically in a position to bring them up.
    But, still, what a very real gap in their lives and I suppose that they may (and I can only surmise here) get some comfort from the notion that someone else is giving their natural children a better life than they might have managed.
    I hope that you will be able to have an increasing and fulfilling part in the life of your child and that this will, in some small way, help to make up for the deep sadness of too many years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 669 ✭✭✭Fizzlesque


    With all due respect, that's why I said abortion can be psychologically scarring for some women. Just as adoption can be, just as having the child can be. Which is why I'm also pro-choice. And why I'm all for better education on contraception to greatly reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies and STI's, which are far, far higher than they need to be. I'd certainly never put myself in the position of telling someone else what to do with an existing pregnancy. As you said, that's for only the woman to decide.

    Fair enough, Izzy. I've read some more of your posts since and see you're pro choice too, so we're actually in agreement on the subject.

    I guess I've seen the psychological trauma argument against allowing women to make their own choice too many times over the years, and it touches a nerve with me.

    As do the many armchair moralists' comments regarding adoption that I've read over the years. It's often thrown out as an idea as glibly as if it was no different to giving a bag of your old clothes to a charity shop. Ah yeah, sure just let someone else have your unwanted old clothes/baby. I've read something along the lines of "if you don't want the baby you're carrying you'll have no problem 'dumping' it on someone who actually cares and would love to be a parent once its born". Yeah, right, 'cause it's really that simple :rolleyes:

    Nature is a powerful mistress and she knows exactly what she's doing with regard to bonding mothers and their babies (though admittedly sometimes it doesn't go according to plan and can take time for some new mothers); managing to walk away from your five day old baby and go home from the hospital without her is a complete freak of nature - chopping off your own arm with a blunt instrument would be a less alien thing to try do.

    This isn't really addressed to you - well, it is addressed to you :) - but it isn't really in response to anything you've posted, it's just something that this subject brings out a need for me to mention.

    People who say 'sure there's always adoption, no need for abortion' both offend and distress me. I'm aware I'm super sensitive about it all, so these feelings might not be terribly rational but that lack of understanding and empathy comes across as callous and cold to me.

    Anyway, I'd better stop typing for fear of producing another tome :p. Thanks for your reply. All the best :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Sure. Great news for the parents, fantastic outcome for the medical professionals and technology who saved them, a great illustration of how far we've come and what we can do in the future.

    I'm not sure what's the point of the constant references to abortion in the article though. She had no intention of aborting.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    seamus wrote: »
    I'm not sure what's the point of the constant references to abortion in the article though. She had no intention of aborting.

    I think the idea is to question weather the 24 week limit on abortion is perhaps too late. If they can potentially survive on their own prior to 24 weeks is it right to kill them?

    I think it's a reasonable question.

    I'm pro choice, I think if a woman wants to end a pregnancy at any stage she should have that choice. But if the child can be saved in the process then why not? Assuming it's likely to result in a reasonable quality of life, which is probably not the case that young, but it's certainly worth discussing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    It's absolutely a reasonable question, and it's my belief that the abortion limit should be periodically revised downwards in light of medical technology and statistics.

    But a single instance does not a statistic make. As best I understand it, medicine is making inroads, but it's a lot slower than one would expect. There's a specific turning point that occurs at 24/25 weeks of development where likelihood of survival suddenly skyrockets in the following weeks, but remains continually poor before 24/25 weeks. These twin boys are part of a statistically tiny number of 23-week babies that survived and will be able to live a functional life without long-term care.

    As it is, it is not automatically assumed that a child born before 24 weeks will be treated/resus'd unless the staff think they have a good chance of pulling through. Babies before 22 weeks are basically never treated and in most cases are considered miscarriages rather than stillbirths.

    In the first 5 months of pregnancy, even 7 days can mean the difference between life and death.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,576 ✭✭✭Paddy Cow


    I think the idea is to question weather the 24 week limit on abortion is perhaps too late. If they can potentially survive on their own prior to 24 weeks is it right to kill them?

    I think it's a reasonable question.

    I'm pro choice, I think if a woman wants to end a pregnancy at any stage she should have that choice. But if the child can be saved in the process then why not? Assuming it's likely to result in a reasonable quality of life, which is probably not the case that young, but it's certainly worth discussing.
    I thought the 24 week limit was for babies who have medical issues that weren't picked up on in earlier scans?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    The UK has a range of limits for different reasons, less then 1% of all abortions carried out by BPAS are 20+ weeks
    the majority 87% are before 9 weeks with the abortion pills.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,089 ✭✭✭✭LizT


    Mod
    Please don't bump old threads.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement