Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

hattoncracker

christmas2012 wrote: »

You honestly can call a painful and invasive procedure,with risk of infection, as a positive thing?first off going to the clinic with your ''mistake'',is not a positive thing to go through..It can be lonely,difficult and extremely emotional,some women cry afterwards due to the pain factor,i know i was there..



What alternative would have been worse,you have a child,like most people do,you have to grow up,and mature,and face the music,possibly hold down a job and support your dependant..

I already have a job, I had two at the time, in fact, working to put myself through college. I'm the only mature student in my university course that has one. Because of it I get no BTEA and no benefits, so you can take your personal attack on me and delicately place it where the sun don't shine. I don't have parents who can help me with money, I'm not dropping out of college, I'm not giving up work to mind a kid and I never will, even when I do have children in the future, I will pay for childcare.

And yes, I can say that it was the right choice. Because you see, I can think and see beyond the procedure, the potential emotional trauma that it could have caused, and look to the future, of what my life would have been like had I now had a kid. I went against what "most people would do" and made the hard choice, because I'll always have to deal with people like you who sprout lies and mistruths, half-experiences, and CAPITAL LETTERS FOR EMPHASIS, who shout and shout, but say nothing.

I "faced the music", I was 24 at the time, I'm more "grown up" than you and most people my own age because I can see view points from all angles, and not just by own 'one personal experience'.

Your language here shows what you really think of me and my choice, calling my unwanted pregnancy a "mistake", telling me to "grow up", shows you don't have one iota of knowledge on this subject. So I feel sorry for your "friend" (if she actually exists) who picked you to go with her, because she made a huge mistake.

For some people, including your friend, it is the right choice, no matter what the procedure is like. No pain, no gain, but the pain is all you focus on, not the situation ten years later, when your friend is happy with her choice.

And I've never used this smilie, but :rolleyes:

eviltwin

Cocolola wrote: »

Having read through nearly 1000 posts I may have missed this point but I'll state it here anyway:

If you are a married couple, you cannot give a baby up for adoption. Just something else to consider when it's being suggested as an alternative. Or to put it another way, an illegitimate child can't be legally adopted.



Taken from The Adoption Authority Ireland.

So even if both the husband and the wife don't want to keep the child it still can't be put forward for adoption? :eek:

hattoncracker

eviltwin wrote: »

So even if both the husband and the wife don't want to keep the child it still can't be put forward for adoption? :eek:

Yup.. I forgot to mention that one.

Bannasidhe

hattoncracker wrote: »

I already have a job, I had two at the time, in fact, working to put myself through college. I'm the only mature student in my university course that has one. Because of it I get no BTEA and no benefits, so you can take your personal attack on me and delicately place it where the sun don't shine. I don't have parents who can help me with money, I'm not dropping out of college, I'm not giving up work to mind a kid and I never will, even when I do have children in the future, I will pay for childcare.

And yes, I can say that it was the right choice. Because you see, I can think and see beyond the procedure, the potential emotional trauma that it could have caused, and look to the future, of what my life would have been like had I now had a kid. I went against what "most people would do" and made the hard choice, because I'll always have to deal with people like you who sprout lies and mistruths, half-experiences, and CAPITAL LETTERS FOR EMPHASIS, who shout and shout, but say nothing.

I "faced the music", I was 24 at the time, I'm more "grown up" than you and most people my own age because I can see view points from all angles, and not just by own 'one personal experience'.

Your language here shows what you really think of me and my choice, calling my unwanted pregnancy a "mistake", telling me to "grow up", shows you don't have one iota of knowledge on this subject. So I feel sorry for your "friend" (if she actually exists) who picked you to go with her, because she made a huge mistake.

And I've never used this smilie, but :rolleyes:

Well said that woman!

I think it is outrageous that someone has the sheer nerve to believe they have the right to lay down a whole heap of judgmental condemnation of someone else's life decisions while at the same time refusing to listen to why those decisions were made.

hattoncracker - I for one admire your courage, your honesty, the forthright manner you have told your story and your refusal to allow anyone to demonise you.

Bannasidhe

eviltwin wrote: »

So even if both the husband and the wife don't want to keep the child it still can't be put forward for adoption? :eek:

Yes, in Ireland only children born 'outside wedlock' (and they say that being 'illegitimate' has no meaning in the 21st century....HA!) can be legally adopted, if the child's parents were married it's a foster situation only.

I learnt about this as a child when I heard an adult justifying calling an adopted friend of mine a 'bastard' on the grounds that being adopted they were indeed a 'bastard.'

hattoncracker

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well said that woman!

I think it is outrageous that someone has the sheer nerve to believe they have the right to lay down a whole heap of judgmental condemnation of someone else's life decisions while at the same time refusing to listen to why those decisions were made.

hattoncracker - I for one admire your courage, your honesty, the forthright manner you have told your story and your refusal to allow anyone to demonise you.

Thankies..
I could say a lot more, but that would get me in trouble. :P

I am honest about it, I don't see the point in holding back, but the main reason I even respond to Christmas is because there could be girls searching for info on here about it, considering it, and I don't want hers to be the only opinion on here, and I don't want women who will decide to do it anyway, even after reading her ahem.. story... to be unnecessarily nervous, or afraid.

When I get to the stage where I have money (but a distant dream right now), then I am going to do something for the women of my area to help them out if this is the choice they make. You shouldn't have to suffer in silence, or recover in the dark, or feel guilty just because some people don't agree with how you live YOUR life.

Tipsygypsy

hattoncracker wrote: »

I am honest about it, I don't see the point in holding back, but the main reason I even respond to Christmas is because there could be girls searching for info on here about it, considering it, and I don't want hers to be the only opinion on here, and I don't want women who will decide to do it anyway, even after reading her ahem.. story... to be unnecessarily nervous, or afraid.
.

Agreed, or for for me its that someone may have had a miscarriage (for no reason other than she had a miscarriage - as one in 5 pregnancies do) and they may then come here and read the unsubstantiated claims and then blame themselves - its this kind shaming that, I believe, hurts women most. And I know a case where this happened, someone told my friend that her miscarriage was her own fault. And thats why I make sure to debunk the claim everytime I see it made.

hattoncracker

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

Agreed, or for for me its that someone may have had a miscarriage (for no reason other than she had a miscarriage - as one in 5 pregnancies do) and they may then come here and read the unsubstantiated claims and then blame themselves - its this kind shaming that, I believe, hurts women most. And I know a case where this happened, someone told my friend that her miscarriage was her own fault. And thats why I make sure to debunk the claim everytime I see it made.

Someone told me if I ever had babies with disabilities or miscarriages that it was all karma and that I deserved it. So I tend to try and discredit stuff like that too. And people who tell mistruths about the procedure itself.

Mark Hamill

christmas2012 wrote: »

LAST REPLY FOR TODAY: whether you get concious sedation or g.a for the abortion,it is still going to be painful afterwards,and it doesnt take away risk of infection

You mean, like pregnancy is painful (for nine months) and carries the risk of infection?

Bannasidhe

hattoncracker wrote: »

Thankies..
I could say a lot more, but that would get me in trouble. :P

I am honest about it, I don't see the point in holding back, but the main reason I even respond to Christmas is because there could be girls searching for info on here about it, considering it, and I don't want hers to be the only opinion on here, and I don't want women who will decide to do it anyway, even after reading her ahem.. story... to be unnecessarily nervous, or afraid.

When I get to the stage where I have money (but a distant dream right now), then I am going to do something for the women of my area to help them out if this is the choice they make. You shouldn't have to suffer in silence, or recover in the dark, or feel guilty just because some people don't agree with how you live YOUR life.

You shouldn't have to hold back. Anti-abortionist try and silence women who have had abortions by trying to make them afraid to speak out.

For me the turning point when I could no longer remain silent was the death in 1984 of Anne Lovett. A 15 year old who died of irreversible shock caused by haemorrhage and exposure during childbirth. This poor girl was so alone, so isolated, so fearful that in Holy Catholic Ireland the only place she could think of where she might find support was a grotto.

Remember this happened in the aftermath of the horrendous 1983 Abortion Referendum when SPUC plastered the country with horrific placards and seemed free to spout their lies largly unchallenged.

I am not saying that if abortion was available Anne Lovett would be alive. I am saying that if, as a society, we laid off the judgement and laid on the education and support she wouldn't have turned to a statue for succor and died alone and afraid.

My son was born in 1984 but by then I had left Holy Catholic Ireland far behind. In the UK not one person expressed anything even remotely resembling judgement at the fact that this young unmarried Irish lesbian was having a baby. Instead a whole support network activated around me and I was treated just like every other woman having a baby. Their only concern was my health and my child's health. What amazed them was my level of ignorance of how my body worked, what symptoms were normal and which ones I should talk to the doctor about etc. Now I probably knew more then most of my contemporaries in Ireland but what I did know was very basic. Looking back on it - I knew nothing!

One of the Midwives (a 7th Day Adventist from Jamaica) was so shocked at my ignorance of how my body worked that she gave me a gift of a book called Our Bodies Our Selves. I still have it.

The stigma attached to talking about sex and the body, the unchallenged vocal judgement of the ignorant given free reign in the media and shouted from the pulpits, the sheer level of institutionalised misinformation in Ireland and the Holy Joes and Josies who bleat on about saving the unborn while ignoring the desperation of the already living caused the death of Anne Lovett and countless others.

Daftendirekt

hattoncracker wrote: »

Someone told me if I ever had babies with disabilities or miscarriages that it was all karma and that I deserved it. So I tend to try and discredit stuff like that too. And people who tell mistruths about the procedure itself.

Whatever about having concerns over the right to life of a foetus, I always find it quite bewildering when pro-lifers present the 'accept the consequences' argument.

It's almost as though they* regard the child as a punishment for the mother, rather than a living, breathing being that deserves to be valued for the person that s/he is.

It certainly wouldn't foster a healthy attitude to child-rearing.

Child: "Mom, how old were you when you knew you wanted kids?"

Parent: "I never wanted kids, Sweety. You were a consequence that I've had to accept for having sex."

Child: "..."

*Some pro-lifers. Not all, of course.

Sin City

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Whatever about having concerns over the right to life of a foetus, I always find it quite bewildering when pro-lifers present the 'accept the consequences' argument.

It's almost as though they* regard the child as a punishment for the mother, rather than a living, breathing being that deserves to be valued for the person that s/he is.

It certainly wouldn't foster a healthy attitude to child-rearing.



*Some pro-lifers. Not all, of course.

I got the whole, yes Sin you were an accident

Hasnt screwed me up:D:D

Bannasidhe

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Whatever about having concerns over the right to life of a foetus, I always find it quite bewildering when pro-lifers present the 'accept the consequences' argument.

It's almost as though they* regard the child as a punishment for the mother, rather than a living, breathing being that deserves to be valued for the person that s/he is.

It certainly wouldn't foster a healthy attitude to child-rearing.



*Some pro-lifers. Not all, of course.

My son boasts of the fact that he knows he was wanted. Not an accident, not a mistake, not a consequence but the result of a planned pregnancy. Apparently, during times when life is tough for him he finds comfort in the fact that his 'being here' was so desired that people were willing to defy convention and stick two fingers up at Irish society and the Catholic Church in order for him to exist.

Bannasidhe

Sin City wrote: »

I got the whole, yes Sin you were an accident

Hasnt screwed me up:D:D

I was an accident too. So was my big sister - we don't mind that our planned brother (the middle child) was the wanted one and by coincidence is the favourite one .

Daftendirekt

My son boasts of the fact that he knows he was wanted. Not an accident, not a mistake, not a consequence but the result of a planned pregnancy. Apparently, during times when life is tough for him he finds comfort in the fact that his 'being here' was so desired that people were willing to defy convention and stick two fingers up at Irish society and the Catholic Church in order for him to exist.

That's the kind of thing that'd keep me warm at night, too.

Even with unplanned children though, the parents' attitude tends to be more "Well, this isn't where I planned to be, but here I am and I'll make the best of it" than "I shall relish my misery for the next eighteen years!"

I got the whole, yes Sin you were an accident

Hasnt screwed me up

Give it decade or two, see how you feel then :pac:

iguana

christmas2012 wrote: »

You honestly can call a painful and invasive procedure,with risk of infection, as a positive thing?

Painful, invasive, risk of infection. That describes a tiny fraction of the shítiness of my pregnancy so far (can't wait for the post-labour comparison ) yet I'd describe my pregnancy as a positive thing because I want a baby.

If someone doesn't want a baby then having an abortion actually saves them a lot of pain, is a lot less invasive and, I suspect, comes with a much lower risk of infection and long-term ill-effects. And they don't have to have a baby at a point where they don't want one. Why wouldn't someone feel it was a positive in that situation?

mohawk

christmas2012 wrote: »

whether you get concious sedation or g.a for the abortion,it is still going to be painful afterwards,and it doesnt take away risk of infection

I really don't think that the pain of the procedure comes into it when a woman or a couple make the decision to have an abortion.
Having a baby is far more painful and afterwards some women are in so much pain its difficult to sit down without the aid of strong painkillers.

I understand that your friend had a bad experience but it's not really a strong argument against abortion.

eviltwin

christmas2012 wrote: »

What alternative would have been worse,you have a child,like most people do,you have to grow up,and mature,and face the music,possibly hold down a job and support your dependant..

You can't make a sweeping statement and say that keeping a baby is the best option for everyone, how patronising.

Yeah some people make it work, plenty of them. When I had my first baby I was only with my now husband 3 months, I was in school, I had nothing going for me and yet it worked out. I have never regretted keeping her.

But the pregnancy I faced where I chose abortion was a whole different set of circumstances. It wasn't just about me anymore, there was a husband and a child to consider. I think sitting down and taking our time to look at our options and then doing what we felt was right FOR US was the mature thing to do. Far better than bring a child into the world neither of us wanted.

By the way, when I had my abortion I was 31 years of age. I was married. I had a job and a house. I had "grown up". I was on paper in exactly the right place to have a baby but that's the thing about having babies, you need more than just the material things to be a good parent. You need to be mentally in the right place too and I wasn't.

I think the latest stats from the UK show that abortions in teenagers and women in their 20's are falling but rising in the over 30's so I'm certainly not unusual.

I'm not making excuses or trying to justify why I did it, I don't need to do that. I am very much at peace with it all and sleep very well at night. This one thing I did does not define me, its just one of many experiences that have made up my life. In fact its people like Christmas who seem to have a harder time dealing with it

fitz0

Brought to you via this fb page is a 2007 paper from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on fetal awareness.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3Ivl7XmaaV4amtiQ1N4ZGN4eDQ/edit

It deals heavily with whether or not foetuses feel pain, concluding that they do not before the 24 week mark. Not once is there a mention of leaving foetuses on tables to suffocate or any of the horrors christmas2012 would have you believe.

Will the fetus/baby be born alive?

The fetus will almost always die during the abortion process. This is always true for surgical
termination. A fetus born before 22 weeks is not capable of surviving. If a medical abortion is
carried out after 21 weeks and 6 days feticide will always be offered. To ensure that the baby
is not born alive, the heart of the fetus will be stopped before the termination is carried out.

This involves an injection of a solution of potassium chloride directly into the fetal heart. A
specially trained doctor carries out feticide. Before anything else is done, the fetal heart will be
checked to ensure it has stopped.

When a late medical abortion is carried out and feticide is not performed, the fetus may show
signs of life when delivered. This may involve body and limb movements. These movements
are a reflex action. They cannot be avoided and can occur after death. This can be very dis-
tressing for both the woman and the clinical team looking after her, particularly if it is
unexpected. Women undergoing late abortion should always be counselled about what might
happen and should be aware of this possibility.

Sin City

fitz0 wrote: »

Brought to you via this fb page is a 2007 paper from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on fetal awareness.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3Ivl7XmaaV4amtiQ1N4ZGN4eDQ/edit

It deals heavily with whether or not foetuses feel pain, concluding that they do not before the 24 week mark. Not once is there a mention of leaving foetuses on tables to suffocate or any of the horrors christmas2012 would have you believe.

That is only one option

Another one used was a procedure called Intact dilation and extraction where

The largest part of the fetus (the head) is reduced in diameter to allow vaginal passage. According to the American Medical Association, this procedure has four main elements. Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as pitocin, a synthetic form of oxytocin, are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus's leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the cervix, which some refer to as 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, leaving only the head still inside the uterus. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening, and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the cervix. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380

Sin City

Interesting to know that there is also The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses,
and also bestows upon the membership of the species homo saipiens at any stage of development in the womb

At the moment abortion has been given an exception

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Lingua Franca

Sin City wrote: »

That is only one option

Another one used was a procedure called Intact dilation and extraction...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380

Another one used where, and when?

I don't think casting up controversial procedures that are only rarely perfomed and ismostly illegal in the USA (as you know since you C&P'ed from the same wiki article I'm reading right now) is conducive to this debate, no matter how gory the description is.

And that procedure is used after 24 weeks, so fitz0's point still stands.

Sin City

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Another one used where, and when?

I don't think casting up controversial procedures that are only rarely perfomed and ismostly illegal in the USA (as you know since you C&P'ed from the same wiki article I'm reading right now) is conducive to this debate, no matter how gory the description is.

And that procedure is used after 24 weeks, so fitz0's point still stands.

I did , copy and paste yes, im out and using the phone now. Yes as far as I know it is banned now but it was used. (Mostly??????? You mean its still in use?)

The other article is also copied and pasted from wiki.

If you would like I get can the proper articles for you later when I have time.

Sin City

According to the New England Journal of Medicine the ban on Partial-Birth Abortion was deemed unconstitional

Despite this decision, in 2003 President George W. Bush signed the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Carhart and a nonprofit legal organization called the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit in Nebraska, as did others in New York and California; in all three states, district and appeals court judges ruled the ban unconstitutional. This past February, however, after Justice Samuel Alito was appointed, the Supreme Court decided to hear Gonzales v. Carhart. Oral arguments will take place this fall.

fitz0

Sin City wrote: »

Interesting to know that there is also The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses,
and also bestows upon the membership of the species homo saipiens at any stage of development in the womb

At the moment abortion has been given an exception

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

Despite what the Yanks may think, their laws do not apply to the whole world. I do not recognize this law and it has no legal binding within the Irish jurisdiction.

Surgical dilation and extraction is mentioned in the document I linked to as a late term procedure but this is where feticide is offered to the patient. I can't imagine any ethical doctor performing it on a living foetus. Since it is a late term procedure, it would only be used where the foetus has no chance of survival or where the mother is in danger.

I didn't actually have a point or agenda in posting the above link. I posted it as further information to the other debaters since the issue of the foetus feeling pain came up a few times. I still have to completely decide on my position.

Lingua Franca

No need, I was just pointing how irrelevant the issue was as a response to fitz0's link, which was from a British Association and specifies "before 24 weeks".

I don't know if it's still in use, just that most states have banned it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion#United_States_2

Sin City

fitz0 wrote: »

Despite what the Yanks may think, their laws do not apply to the whole world. I do not recognize this law and it has no legal binding within the Irish jurisdiction.

Surgical dilation and extraction is mentioned in the document I linked to as a late term procedure but this is where feticide is offered to the patient. I can't imagine any ethical doctor performing it on a living foetus. Since it is a late term procedure, it would only be used where the foetus has no chance of survival or where the mother is in danger.

I didn't actually have a point or agenda in posting the above link. I posted it as further information to the other debaters since the issue of the foetus feeling pain came up a few times. I still have to completely decide on my position.

I can see that you had no agenda and don't feel like.I'm attacking you. i am just posting another method used , albeit in.late term abortion .



as for the the unborn victims act.it was.just interesting to know that a law does grant a fetus the species of.homo sapien and.will grant personhood too. there is a precedent there now

fitz0

Sin City wrote: »

I can see that you had no agenda and don't feel like.I'm attacking you.

I don't.

Sin City wrote: »

as for the the unborn victims act.it was.just interesting to know that a law does grant a fetus the species of.homo sapien and.will grant personhood too. there is a precedent there now

I can't help but feel that law was a ploy by the pro-lifers in the US to impose their stance on the nation. But even so, you're right. The precedent is there for others to use even if it has not hampered the operation of abortion clinics in the US.

FWIW I wouldn't contest that a foetus is homo sapiens. Personhood, that's more tricky.

EDIT: A reread of that wiki reveals that there was an exemption in the bill for the purpose of abortion.

Sin City

fitz0 wrote: »

I don't.



I can't help but feel that law was a ploy by the pro-lifers in the US to impose their stance on the nation. But even so, you're right. The precedent is there for others to use even if it has not hampered the operation of abortion clinics in the US.

FWIW I wouldn't contest that a foe
tus is homo sapiens. Personhood, that's more tricky.

EDIT: A reread of that wiki reveals that there was an exemption in the bill for the purpose of abortion.

I did say abortion got an.exemption, it was.just.the homo sapien part.I was interested in from a previous arguement

Bannasidhe

Sin City wrote: »

I did say abortion got an.exemption, it was.just.the homo sapien part.I was interested in from a previous arguement

What else would it be? Homo heidelbergensis? That just means its species.