Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

PAnglican

You are most welcome

Obliq wrote: »

I really can't tell you how much it means to me that you have shown this kind of understanding. Thank you again for the trust you have gained in/from women.

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The psychiatric perspective, as I understand it, is simply that someone reacting to a crisis, any crisis, with substantial thoughts of ending their life has a deeper problem. Nobody is particularly expecting anyone to react with delight to an unwanted pregnancy. They're just suggesting (and you'll see some stuff around this already on the thread) that suicide isn't a normal response to a stressful situation - or, at least, we shouldn't be ideating on that basis. (Can you say "ideating"? If not, I don't like the word any more.)

You're absolutely right with this statement (bolded), but you are totally missing the point of just how desperate someone with an unwanted pregnancy can be. Yes, of course someone reacting to an unwanted pregnancy with suicidal thoughts (better?) has a deeper problem.

It could be that she has 3 children already and has been trying to find a way out of an abusive relationship where both she and the children are at huge risk. Another baby will make her and those she has to protect many times more vulnerable and completely unable to leave. The desperation of this (hypothetical here, but very common) situation could surely lead to the feelings of helplessness that are so unrelenting, suicide looks like an option.

It could be that she is about to lose the roof over her head. This problem alone, without the addition of an unwanted pregnancy, is already leading to people feeling suicidal.

It could be that she has been raped. I don't need to tell you where/what the deeper problem here would be.

It could be that she is eighteen and just about to go to college and follow her dream of standing on her own two feet and has had an unobserved contraceptive malfunction (so no morning after pill) - is now looking at staying behind in the one horse town she grew up in with only a job in the pub to look forward to. For some people, the prospect of one's choices being so instantly messed up could be devastating.

I could go on and on. For EVERY unwanted pregnancy, there is a reason not to want it - there is a deeper problem. Suicidal thoughts are often a 'normal' reaction to a 'stressful situation' that someone can't see a way out of. There are so many instances where a woman who is pregnant and cannot contemplate continuing with it could feel so utterly desperate at having no access to abortion, I think it's disingenuous to suggest that she merely isn't reacting with delight to an unwanted pregnancy.

magicbastarder

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The psychiatric perspective, as I understand it, is simply that someone reacting to a crisis, any crisis, with substantial thoughts of ending their life has a deeper problem. Nobody is particularly expecting anyone to react with delight to an unwanted pregnancy. They're just suggesting (and you'll see some stuff around this already on the thread) that suicide isn't a normal response to a stressful situation - or, at least, we shouldn't be ideating on that basis.

keeping it in a medical context, it's easy to point out that if you have an underlying condition with several symptoms, you'd still usually treat the symptoms - even though that's not in itself treating the cause.

it still comes down to the issue of the effects of refusing an abortion to a suicidal person; even if the abortion would not cure the suicidal feelings, you've just made a suicidal woman give birth against her will.

Sarky

PAnglican wrote: »

Thanks for your comment - I felt I had to say what was on my mind as the airwaves are dominated by those who think everything in life is black and white

Good show. It's nice to see the "middle ground" start to make itself heard over the extremist crazies.

Bannasidhe

Looks like some TDs are openly refusing to be bullied and are publicly fighting back.

Let's have a cheer for Deputy John Halligan!

http://www.waterford-today.ie/waterford-today-news/19772-intimidation-attempts-won-t-change-my-views-john-halligan-td-19772.html

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Looks like some TDs are openly refusing to be bullied and are publicly fighting back.

Popette rang a few days back to talk in glowing terms about her ongoing prayer vigils outside the constituency offices of one or other of her hapless local TD's.

I can't imagine she'll be pushing literature through people's letter boxes at midnight, but that's only because she'd be too tired too and probably hasn't though of it yet.

Sarky

Popette makes me sad

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

Popette makes me sad

I am sooooo glad I don't have to put up with her.

robindch

Sarky wrote: »

Popette makes me sad

Seconded

kylith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Looks like some TDs are openly refusing to be bullied and are publicly fighting back.

Let's have a cheer for Deputy John Halligan!

http://www.waterford-today.ie/waterford-today-news/19772-intimidation-attempts-won-t-change-my-views-john-halligan-td-19772.html

I like the bit where he said he'd just dropped the literature in Mr. Halligan's letterbox as he was passing; after midnight, like. What was he up to that he was 'just passing' someone's house in the middle of the night? And why would he not have the cop-on to realise that putting things through letterboxes in the middle of the night, especially from a group which has just had an altercation with the homeowner, will freak people right out?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Obliq wrote: »

Suicidal thoughts are often a 'normal' reaction to a 'stressful situation' that someone can't see a way out of.

But isn't this the nub of issue. There's a school of thought, with an amount of evidence behind it, that a policy which approaches suicidal thoughts as a normal reaction to a stressful situation is counterproductive. Exactly as you say, we might have a scenario like someone defaulting on loans, with other family commitments in addition to the pregnancy.

The problem with how this issue is raised with us, through the X Case, is that we're forced to look at it through too narrow a window. If the material basis for someone's life is collapsing, it's almost surreal to have a law saying "in all of this turmoil, the one thing you can be sure of is there's access to abortion within the Republic of Ireland if you can identify the pregnancy as the thing that's really doing your head in."

I know this is one of those situations where we're likely to invite each other to take a step back and see a wider picture. But I really would suggest that the particular statement I've quoted is, we're told, problematic. And that's not to relate the suicide issue to abortion, particularly. In fact, if we're to draw anything out of the evidence we're hearing, it's that we need to detach the two.

I do understand your contention - that a legal ban requiring travel creates a potential source of stress that otherwise would not exist. However, I think the advice being given with respect to the approach that policy needs to take is broader than that concern. The issue is, primarily, how people react to stress, because we're never going to be able to eliminate all forms of stress.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

magicbastarder wrote: »

<...>

it still comes down to the issue of the effects of refusing an abortion to a suicidal person; even if the abortion would not cure the suicidal feelings, you've just made a suicidal woman give birth against her will.

Absolutely, but that might occur even under a liberal law. If someone is deemed to be mentally ill (and I'm not assuming someone who is suicidal is always mentally ill, nor, to be clear, should we be talking as if all mentally ill people will be suicidal), then their capacity to consent to medical treatment may be compromised. In that situation (in some extreme circumstance) you could even find medical treatment being forced on someone.

In fact, we've already a precedent in this country of a blood transfusion being forced on a adult, against her religious beliefs, on grounds that otherwise her child would be left orphaned. IIRC, there wasn't even a suggestion that she had any mental impairment.

Obliq

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But isn't this the nub of issue. There's a school of thought, with an amount of evidence behind it, that a policy which approaches suicidal thoughts as a normal reaction to a stressful situation is counterproductive. ..........................................

The problem with how this issue is raised with us, through the X Case, is that we're forced to look at it through too narrow a window.

Isn't that what I, and most of the pro-choice movement have been banging on about endlessly for months?

I know this is one of those situations where we're likely to invite each other to take a step back and see a wider picture. But I really would suggest that the particular statement I've quoted is, we're told, problematic. And that's not to relate the suicide issue to abortion, particularly. In fact, if we're to draw anything out of the evidence we're hearing, it's that we need to detach the two.

You're being reasonable again GCU. Are you sick?!;) Seriously though, yes of course (the bolded part).

I do understand your contention - that a legal ban requiring travel creates a potential source of stress that otherwise would not exist. However, I think the advice being given with respect to the approach that policy needs to take is broader than that concern. The issue is, primarily, how people react to stress, because we're never going to be able to eliminate all forms of stress.

The issue is this ^^^ where exactly? The issue of legislating to include suicidal ideation as a threat to life of the woman has absolutely nothing got to do with eliminating stress, and everything to do with having been stupid enough not to tackle the 8th amendment, thereby backing themselves and the rest of us into this corner. Forgive me now, if I'm wrong, but I can't see any part of the approach govt is taking that is even touching on concern for women under stress from crisis pregnancies, never mind with respect for broader concerns.

Galvasean

koth wrote: »

Amnesty 'very concerned' about Ireland's abortion laws

What are the odds that the ECHR will look at Ireland's legislation and decide, "Not good enough. Try again."?

aloyisious

Galvasean wrote: »

What are the odds that the ECHR will look at Ireland's legislation and decide, "Not good enough. Try again."?

Aargh.............Nooooooooooooooo.

Ask them to come up with a solution to their judgement.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Obliq wrote: »

The issue is this ^^^ where exactly? The issue of legislating to include suicidal ideation as a threat to life of the woman has absolutely nothing got to do with eliminating stress, and everything to do with having been stupid enough not to tackle the 8th amendment, thereby backing themselves and the rest of us into this corner. Forgive me now, if I'm wrong, but I can't see any part of the approach govt is taking that is even touching on concern for women under stress from crisis pregnancies, never mind with respect for broader concerns.

I think that's a fair description of the situation. If there's ambiguity in the discussion, I think its probably because there's really two discussions that bang off each other (and I think this has been made explicit on occasion.) There's the discussion just around what should be done around legislating for X. The second discussion is that wider debate, which is what might be done if a referendum was on the table.

As far as I'm concerned, the incoherence of the X Case suicide ground points to the need for that wider debate. I'm not sure if I'm getting that point across; it may well be that others are saying much the same, and it's just not getting across to me, either.

Delirium

TDs to support abortion amendment to provide for medical terminations

A NUMBER OF TDs from across all parties are set to work together on an amendment which could see pregnant women with babies suffering from fatal foetal abnormalities be provided with terminations or early inducements in Ireland.

The development comes after an afternoon meeting between advocacy group Terminations for Medical Reasons (TFMR) and a number of deputies, advisers and other stakeholders at Leinster House yesterday.

Hopefully they'll manage to include the possibly of abortions for fatal foetal abnormalities.

aloyisious

Now for the question on a limitation in the Act, 24 weeks too long or about right for no termination beyond that? I'm asking this because of the mention by some Pro-lifers as to how the X-case judgement allows for terminations up to nine months. A Pro-lifer made that quote on the Pat Kenny Radio show this morning.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

koth wrote: »

TDs to support abortion amendment to provide for medical terminations



Hopefully they'll manage to include the possibly of abortions for fatal foetal abnormalities.

I think it's positive as well, as it will test if the present Constitutional position can be stretched to cover this. And, politically, the pro-life side will find it next to impossible to mount credible arguments against such a proposal.

Turtwig

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think it's positive as well, as it will test if the present Constitutional position can be stretched to cover this. And, politically, the pro-life side will find it next to impossible to mount credible arguments against such a proposal.

Oh great! That means they're just going to shout even louder so.
Good for the ear plug industry, I suppose.

PopePalpatine

aloyisious wrote: »

Now for the question on a limitation in the Act, 24 weeks too long or about right for no termination beyond that?

A pregnancy can still be a risk to one's life/health beyond 24 weeks.

lazygal

PopePalpatine wrote: »

A pregnancy can still be a risk to one's life/health beyond 24 weeks.

Yes, even specific conditions such as pre eclampsia that pregnant women face can arise late in pregnancy, or a heart shaped uterus at risk of rupture. If you're in a hospital which doesn't "bother" with 20 week anomaly scans all kinds of things can go undiagnosed.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

I think this is just an indication of why the suicide ground just isn't coherent. I know we've been through it - it's just the incoherence is still being digested by the polictical system.

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-i-have-always-considered-myself-pro-choice-but-i-cant-support-the-proposed-abortion-bill-924815-May2013/


<...>
The main points of concern that I have with the Bill are mainly contained in Head 4 – those relating to the risk of loss of life from self-destruction, ie suicide. There are a number of grounds upon which my concerns rest.
The idea that a baby, as anticipated in the Heads of Bill, would be intentionally delivered prematurely, which would leave it at risk of disability, and placed in an incubator under the care of the State is seems somewhat dystopian to me. Minister of State, Alex White, confirmed this understanding during his closing remarks to the Health Committee on Tuesday evening. However, neither he nor the Minister for Health have been able to provide any detail about how the welfare of such infants would be secured, including their welfare into adulthood with any disability that may arise from such an early delivery as is envisaged by this legislation.<....>

Now, if it was me, I'd have picked that moment to say "Alex, isn't that just bullsh*t."

Loafing Oaf

Could someone explain to me the basis on which Colm O'Gorman is opposing the legislation, cos I couldn't make head nor tail of his statement?

Turtwig

Not really news.

rte.ie wrote:

Standards in Public Office Commission Chairman Justice Matthew Smith has expressed concern over the agency's power to monitor groups involved in the current abortion debate. According to correspondence seen by RTÉ, the chairman of the political spending watchdog, has written to the Government seeking greater powers to sanction so-called 'third parties' which do not cooperate with inquiries.
A third party is any group or individual, other than a registered political party or an election candidate, which accepts a donation above a certain value for political purposes. In the letter, written on 14 May, retired High Court Judge Smith asked Minister for the Environment Phil Hogan to consider widespread changes to its powers under the Electoral Acts.
SIPO has written to a number of organisations in recent months which it believes may be operating as third parties, the majority of which are engaged in the current abortion debate. These include Action on X as well the Life Institute, Family and Life and Youth Defence.
Action on X told RTÉ that it intends to register but had not yet done so. Neither Family and Life or Youth Defence replied when contacted by RTÉ.
Niamh Ui Bhrian of the Life Institute said that her organisation did not believe it needed to register as it was a human rights organisation.
SIPO also wrote to the Socialist Workers Party. A spokesman said the party had not yet registered but it intended to do so.
In the letter, Mr Justice Smith said that the current debate on abortion had "highlighted the ineffectiveness of the existing provisions and makes it impossible for the Commission to operate effectively in this area". Mr Justice Smith noted that the government was planning a new electoral bill in 2014 and indicated that this could be an opportunity to introduce reforms of the law governing how Sipo operates.
Dr Jane Suiter, political scientist at Dublin City University's school of communications said SIPO had repeatedly called for stronger powers for over a decade.
She said that Mr Justice Smith's letter amounted to giving the Government a deadline for action on the issue.
Under the current Electoral Acts, the commission had no effective power to sanction anyone who they believed had not cooperated with the commission, she said.

Source.

aloyisious

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Could someone explain to me the basis on which Colm O'Gorman is opposing the legislation, cos I couldn't make head nor tail of his statement?

Can you give me the link to what he said please, is he speaking from his position within the Irish branch of "Amnesty"?

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

Can you give me the link to what he said please, is he speaking from his position within the Irish branch of "Amnesty"?

Sorry, meant Colm Keaveney, O'Gorman was a model of clarity, perhaps because he's not a politician any more!

Turtwig

Keavney's comes across as an attempt at "I defied the party whip, now what other way can I garner attention for myself". Maybe it wasn't but jesus if that's deemed a high standard for personal reflections on abortion then I really don't know what else to say.

Morag

Jernal wrote: »

Keavney's comes across as an attempt at "I defied the party whip, now what other way can I garner attention for myself". Maybe it wasn't but jesus if that's deemed a high standard for personal reflections on abortion then I really don't know what else to say.

That the entire article managed not to use the word woman or women at all!

Nodin

Morag wrote: »

That the entire article managed not to use the word woman or women at all!

Maybe he did....

an incubator