Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

HellFireClub

Nodin wrote: »

...which you throw in as an objection to abortion, but would drop like a hot rock if it turned out that most potential fathers would support an abortion, or support whatever the woman wanted.

Yes most lads caught up in a pregnancy situation would be supportive of a girl having an abortion, because it conveniently saves them probably embarrassment if the conception has emerged out of a one night stand type situation, and it saves them 18 years of financial maintenance and support if the woman wants to proceed with a pregnancy but could be talked out of it.

All I'm saying is that I think if people took more personal responsibility for their own actions, then a lot of this discussion would be actually mute, unnecessary and irrelevant. It's certainly how I was brought up, to take some responsibility for what I get up to and stand by the choices I make. I wasn't brought up to believe in a world where we can retrospectively undo huge mistakes that we make, and that we can just eliminate the consequences.

And I'm not so heartless or cruel to say that a girl who has been raped should be refused access to an abortion, if one is necessary there, then allow it. My key concern is with abortion services being made available here as a contraceptive choice, I think that is wrong, I think it reduces us to butchers using human as opposed to animal flesh and I just don't believe in it, especially where contraception is so freely available in this day and age.

poeticseraphim

Rodin wrote: »

This has morphed into one of the biggest political footballs we've seen.

Yeah and the Irish football team is crap.....:mad:

Infact they should be called a soccer team..they don't deserve to be called a football team

opinion guy

HellFireClub wrote: »

Yes most lads caught up in a pregnancy situation would be supportive of a girl having an abortion, because it conveniently saves them probably embarrassment if the conception has emerged out of a one night stand type situation, and it saves them 18 years of financial maintenance and support if the woman wants to proceed with a pregnancy but could be talked out of it.

I for one find this offensive. Reported for sexist man-bashing.

Nodin

HellFireClub wrote: »

Yes most lads caught up in a pregnancy situation would be supportive of a girl having an abortion, because it conveniently saves them probably embarrassment if the conception has emerged out of a one night stand type situation, and it saves them 18 years of financial maintenance and support if the woman wants to proceed with a pregnancy but could be talked out of it.

All I'm saying is that I think if people took more personal responsibility for their own actions, then a lot of this discussion would be actually mute, unnecessary and irrelevant. It's certainly how I was brought up, to take some responsibility for what I get up to and stand by the choices I make. I wasn't brought up to believe in a world where we can retrospectively undo huge mistakes that we make, and that we can just eliminate the consequences.

And I'm not so heartless or cruel to say that a girl who has been raped should be refused access to an abortion, if one is necessary there, then allow it. My key concern is with abortion services being made available here as a contraceptive choice, I think that is wrong, I think it reduces us to butchers using human as opposed to animal flesh and I just don't believe in it, especially where contraception is so freely available in this day and age.

men are embarrassed over one night stands????????????

Good fuck, how do I get back to my own dimension......

blacklilly

up for anything wrote: »

Maybe the potential father should have tied a knot in it.

And maybe the potential mother should have her tubes tide...stupid logic

HellFireClub

opinion guy wrote: »

I for one find this offensive. Reported for sexist man-bashing.

How in the name of Christ is that offensive? I am a guy you know!

HellFireClub

Nodin wrote: »

men are embarrassed over one night stands????????????

Good fuck, how do I get back to my own dimension......

No that's not what I said. What I said is that a man would naturally be embarrassed at having to explain to his family that he got a girl pregnant after having a one night stand with her and he might not even know her surname. I've seen this happening before, and the guy was hugely embarrassed because he wasn't ready to be a father or so he claimed. What's the problem saying that?

Knasher

HellFireClub wrote: »

All I'm saying is that I think if people took more personal responsibility for their own actions, then a lot of this discussion would be actually mute, unnecessary and irrelevant. It's certainly how I was brought up, to take some responsibility for what I get up to and stand by the choices I make. I wasn't brought up to believe in a world where we can retrospectively undo huge mistakes that we make, and that we can just eliminate the consequences.

No form of birth control bar abstinence is 100% effective. So unless you think that people should only have sex when they have chosen to have children, there are going to be women who are pregnant but who haven't made the choice to be.

HellFireClub wrote: »

And I'm not so heartless or cruel to say that a girl who has been raped should be refused access to an abortion, if one is necessary there, then allow it. My key concern is with abortion services being made available here as a contraceptive choice, I think that is wrong, I think it reduces us to butchers using human as opposed to animal flesh and I just don't believe in it, especially where contraception is so freely available in this day and age.

And I think that women should have a say over their own reproductive system and even though I recognize that a fetus is a potential life, I don't believe that it overrides a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

In any case I find your position naive. Studies have shown that even in counties that have banned abortions, they still occur (at an even higher rate, though that is down to bans on contraceptives seeing as there is some overlap between the bans). Banning abortions doesn't stop them, it only makes the choice riskier.

Galwayguy35

rainbow kirby wrote: »

This country sucks

Speak for yourself, maybe you don't like Ireland but I still think it is a great country to live in.

It's the Government that is at fault not the country.

Lingua Franca

HellFireClub wrote: »

How in the name of Christ is that offensive? I am a guy you know!

To be fair, we could tell from phrases like this.

HellFireClub wrote: »

My key concern is with abortion services being made available here as a contraceptive choice,

It's painful, invasive and stigmatised. You really think women are picking this over condoms and the pill? It's not easier. It's not cheaper. It's certainly a lot more uncomfortable and not without risks - why on earth do you think women would choose abortion over protecting themselves?

HellFireClub

Knasher wrote: »

No form of birth control bar abstinence is 100% effective. So unless you think that people should only have sex when they have chosen to have children, there are going to be women who are pregnant but who haven't made the choice to be.

And I think that women should have a say over their own reproductive system and even though I recognize that a fetus is a potential life, I don't believe that it overrides a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

In any case I find your position naive. Studies have shown that even in counties that have banned abortions, they still occur (at an even higher rate, though that is down to bans on contraceptives seeing as there is some overlap between the bans). Banning abortions doesn't stop them, it only makes the choice riskier.

That's a stupid argument, if a girl is on the pill and a couple are using condoms, then there is a negligible risk of pregnancy, its effectively zero. But the problem is that a lot of these unwanted pregnancies are emerging out of people using neither, and a pregnancy emerges and people don't want to take responsibility for their actions and want a retrospective solution now to be put in place to fix that for them. I say no, take some responsibility for your actions and then you won't need abortion services.

jill_valentine

HellFireClub wrote: »

All I'm saying is that I think if people took more personal responsibility for their own actions, then a lot of this discussion would be actually mute, unnecessary and irrelevant. It's certainly how I was brought up, to take some responsibility for what I get up to and stand by the choices I make. I wasn't brought up to believe in a world where we can retrospectively undo huge mistakes that we make, and that we can just eliminate the consequences.

Your position is, basically, that if a woman has sex it's only a fair result that she should be "punished" with a baby, to teach her a lesson about consequences.

I hear different guises of that same notion over and over again, and the people who put it forward always seem bizarrely oblivious to just how little value their thinking would allocate to the baby in this scenario. Most anti-choice types don't give a toss about babies or abortion itself, it's the sex they've got a problem with.

Nodin

HellFireClub wrote: »

That's a stupid argument, if a girl is on the pill and a couple are using condoms, then there is a negligible risk of pregnancy, its effectively zero. But the problem is that a lot of these unwanted pregnancies are emerging out of people using neither, and a pregnancy emerges and people don't want to take responsibility for their actions and want a retrospective solution now to be put in place to fix that for them. I say no, take some responsibility for your actions and then you won't need abortion services.

...so women should have children as punishment. Hmmmmm....what possible downside could there be to that delightful scenario....

old hippy

poeticseraphim wrote: »

By the way i am not pro-abortion....many women choose to put themselves at risk....

It is a personnal choice....

Who can say

can you expand on that, please?

Death and Taxes

HellFireClub wrote: »

That's a stupid argument, if a girl is on the pill and a couple are using condoms, then there is a negligible risk of pregnancy, its effectively zero. But the problem is that a lot of these unwanted pregnancies are emerging out of people using neither, and a pregnancy emerges and people don't want to take responsibility for their actions and want a retrospective solution now to be put in place to fix that for them. I say no, take some responsibility for your actions and then you won't need abortion services.

Your missing the point.
Abortion is a personal issue, the ability to obtain a termination of pregnancy through choice up to 14 weeks, should be available as easily as the ability to buy a pint a guinness.
Abortion is the business of nobody save the person or couple directly involved.

dr.bollocko

jill_valentine wrote: »

Your position is, basically, that if a woman has sex it's only a fair result that she should be "punished" with a baby, to teach her a lesson about consequences.

I hear different guises of that same notion over and over again, and the people who put it forward always seem bizarrely oblivious to just how little value their thinking allocates to the baby in this scenario. Most anti-choice types don't give a toss about babies or abortion itself, it's the sex they've got a problem with.

Hence using phrases like "abortion as a form of contraception". Which is particularly designed to rile. Oh those women and their sex and their 200 abortions. It's one referendum away. Don't you forget it. They'll put it in the water soon enough etc.

Death and Taxes

Nodin wrote: »

...so women should have children as punishment. Hmmmmm....what possible downside could there be to that delightful scenario....

Yes then we can deride them as scroungers and sluts, their kids can grow up in poverty or worse and we can all chew happily on our communion!

old hippy

HellFireClub wrote: »

I fully agree that an abortion should be a choice that is allowed in such a case. But what I don't agree with, is that we end up with abortion on demand in Ireland, contrary to the stated will of the people, which the pro-abortion lobby simply cannot accept.

The 6,000 odd Irish women who are traveling to the UK every year to procure an abortion, are not all victims of horrific rape now, are they?

No, they are women who have no other choice because their own country and the neo-taliban types (which is a more suitable moniker for your lot) are too busy taking away choice and freedom.

There's plenty of other factors at work than rape.

Rodin

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Your missing the point.
Abortion is a personal issue, the ability to obtain a termination of pregnancy through choice up to 14 weeks, should be available as easily as the ability to buy a pint a guinness.
Abortion is the business of nobody save the person or couple directly involved.

And who will perform this abortion?

HellFireClub

HellFireClub wrote: »

That's a stupid argument, if a girl is on the pill and a couple are using condoms, then there is a negligible risk of pregnancy, its effectively zero. But the problem is that a lot of these unwanted pregnancies are emerging out of people using neither, and a pregnancy emerges and people don't want to take responsibility for their actions and want a retrospective solution now to be put in place to fix that for them. I say no, take some responsibility for your actions and then you won't need abortion services.

How's the weather up there on your perch?

You may feel abortion is wrong and you're entitled to your view, but why should you (or anybody else) force your beliefs on someone else? It's a very personal decision and it's not one that's taken lightly.

Trust me, it is impossible to appreciate what these women are going through if you haven't experienced the situation yourself.

HellFireClub

jill_valentine wrote: »

Your position is, basically, that if a woman has sex it's only a fair result that she should be "punished" with a baby, to teach her a lesson about consequences.

I hear different guises of that same notion over and over again, and the people who put it forward always seem bizarrely oblivious to just how little value their thinking would allocate to the baby in this scenario. Most anti-choice types don't give a toss about babies or abortion itself, it's the sex they've got a problem with.

Nope, a natural consequence of having unprotected sex, is inevitably going to be a pregnancy. If you don't want to end up pregnant after sex, then use contraception. If a girl is on the pill and a couple are using condoms, there is a practically zero chance of pregnancy.

I completely disagree that we should provide an abortion service for people who are too stupid or scabby to take adult responsibility for their own actions and use contraception. The same logic that says that we should allow an abortion for a couple who find the conception of a child to be an inconvenience to them, also would suggest that we should kill the elderly when they become too difficult to care for or become an inconvenience to us.

poeticseraphim

Maybe we should save the arguements for the referendum...we were going to have one before all this anyway.

Death and Taxes

Rodin wrote: »

And who will perform this abortion?

Well in civillised modern western democracys they dont appear to have any problem with providing abortions, so I wouldn't expect any issue here.
Your silly post reminds me of those in the late 70's early 80's who argued against the provision of contaception on the basis that no-one would provide that either, oh how wrong they were!

HellFireClub

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Hence using phrases like "abortion as a form of contraception". Which is particularly designed to rile. Oh those women and their sex and their 200 abortions. It's one referendum away. Don't you forget it. They'll put it in the water soon enough etc.

That's exactly what it looks like to any right thinking person. It's just a reversal of a bad decision, the bad decision being to have unprotected sex.

gozunda

kunst nugget wrote: »

We don't know anything beyond the barest details of the case so to say what the doctor did, thought or believed is complete conjecture. I don't think it helps the debate to make statements like this as if they were fact.

I disagree

The woman died. From the testimony of the Husband She was refused a termination on the grounds there was still a foetal heartbeat and because 'this was a catholic country. Again I find it incredible that such information is to be denied because 'well we really shouldn't say anything' - Wrong we should register our disgust and horror at what happened. It is also my opinion that this should serve as a catalyst for change.

What will the outcome of the investigation will be no one knows but tbh I have little or no faith in tribunals or investigations in this country where oftern the findings are buried in the minutiae of political interference and riging.

old hippy

HellFireClub wrote: »

Nope, a natural consequence of having unprotected sex, is inevitably going to be a pregnancy. If you don't want to end up pregnant after sex, then use contraception. If a girl is on the pill and a couple are using condoms, there is a practically zero chance of pregnancy.

I completely disagree that we should provide an abortion service for people who are too stupid or scabby to take adult responsibility for their own actions and use contraception. The same logic that says that we should allow an abortion for a couple who find the conception of a child to be an inconvenience to them, also would suggest that we should kill the elderly when they become too difficult to care for or become an inconvenience to us.

Clearly, you've never had sex or a sexual relationship. Grow up, ffs and look around you.

You haven't a clue about people who have abortions, so how frikkin dare you tell the rest of what to do?

Ironic moniker, btw. Given all those randy young bucks back in the day, sowing their wild oats without regard to your consequences. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

opinion guy

HellFireClub wrote: »

How in the name of Christ is that offensive? I am a guy you know!

How is your gender relevant ?

You were casting all men as wanting to avoid responsibility - this is not true.

HeyThereDeliah

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Your missing the point.
Abortion is a personal issue, the ability to obtain a termination of pregnancy through choice up to 14 weeks, should be available as easily as the ability to buy a pint a guinness.
Abortion is the business of nobody save the person or couple directly involved.

As easily as buying a pint of Guinness? You really think that would be a good thing? Would you recommend girls have more than one abortion?

I agree it is a personal issue but on demand no.

Rodin

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Well in civillised modern western democracys they dont appear to have any problem with providing abortions, so I wouldn't expect any issue here.
Your silly post reminds me of those in the late 70's early 80's who argued against the provision of contaception on the basis that no-one would provide that either, oh how wrong they were!

My point is not that nobody will provide the service, but that it is not just the business of the couple once you require the services of a third party.

HellFireClub

old hippy wrote: »

Clearly, you've never had sex or a sexual relationship. Grow up, ffs and look around you.

You haven't a clue about people who have abortions, so how frikkin dare you tell the rest of what to do?

Ironic moniker, btw. Given all those randy young bucks back in the day, sowing their wild oats without regard to your consequences. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I've LOADS of experience having sex. But another thing I have a lot of experience with, is taking some fúcking responsibility for my actions and if I'm having sex, that I'll be having protected sex! I've also tended to be in long term relationships where if a pregnancy occurred, I don't think myself or any of my respective partners would have wanted to have an abortion, as we would have been like minded people on the subject. If I thought a girl had pro-abortion opinions, I wouldn't get into a relationship with her in the first place.

kunst nugget

HellFireClub wrote: »

Nope, a natural consequence of having unprotected sex, is inevitably going to be a pregnancy. If you don't want to end up pregnant after sex, then use contraception. If a girl is on the pill and a couple are using condoms, there is a practically zero chance of pregnancy.

I completely disagree that we should provide an abortion service for people who are too stupid or scabby to take adult responsibility for their own actions and use contraception. The same logic that says that we should allow an abortion for a couple who find the conception of a child to be an inconvenience to them, also would suggest that we should kill the elderly when they become too difficult to care for or become an inconvenience to us.

And what happens in the scenario where a woman is sick and her pill is ineffective and the condom the man wears splits?

Here's a crazy thought. Now it might be totally out there but work with me on it. Let's say we bring in abortion and then that couple can choose to have a termination if they see fit for their own personal reasons and you can choose not to have the abortion and show the world what a stand up guy you are if it happens to you? You know if abortion is brought in, you're not legally required to have one.

Death and Taxes

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

As easily as buying a pint of Guinness? You really think that would be a good thing? Would you recommend girls have more than one abortion?

I agree it is a personal issue but on demand no.

Why misrepresent what I said? Are you running out of logical arguements?
I never said I would RECOMMEND anybody to do anything!
Does saying I believe in the ability to freely buy chocolate mean I am RECOMMENDING that others live on a diet of chocolate?

HellFireClub

opinion guy wrote: »

How is your gender relevant ?

You were casting all men as wanting to avoid responsibility - this is not true.

I didn't say all men, I said a lot of men or most men or words to that effect.

kunst nugget

HellFireClub wrote: »

I've LOADS of experience having sex.

God, I wish I was standing right beside you now to be able to high five you…

Death and Taxes

Rodin wrote: »

My point is not that nobody will provide the service, but that it is not just the business of the couple once you require the services of a third party.

You have checked with Marie Stopes, The IFPA etc, no I didn't think so.
In economics you will find that where there is a market there will always be a provider.

Rodin

kunst nugget wrote: »

And what happens in the scenario where a woman is sick and her pill is ineffective and the condom the man wears splits?

Here's a crazy thought. Now it might be totally out there but work with me on it. Let's say we bring in abortion and then that couple can choose to have a termination if they see fit for their own personal reasons and you can choose not to have the abortion and show the world what a stand up guy you are if it happens to you? You know if abortion is brought in, you're not legally required to have one.

If a condom splits, then you go for the morning after pill. Next . . .
I've seen people put two litres of water in a condom, throw it, and it still doesn't split. Those things are very strong.

Rodin

Rodin wrote: »

My point is not that nobody will provide the service, but that it is not just the business of the couple once you require the services of a third party.

Not really sure what your point is? It's still only the personal business of the couple, and the decisions are theirs (or hers). The person providing the abortion is most likely someone they've never met before who is just doing their job.

opinion guy

HellFireClub wrote: »

That's exactly what it looks like to any right thinking person. It's just a reversal of a bad decision, the bad decision being to have unprotected sex.

Oh there is that phrase :rolleyes:
The one that tells us you know how we all should be thinking.

I'm out. Bye.

Knasher

HellFireClub wrote: »

That's a stupid argument, if a girl is on the pill and a couple are using condoms, then there is a negligible risk of pregnancy, its effectively zero.

The typical failure rate of the pill and the condom is 8% and 15% respectively (though 0.3% and 2% under ideal circumstances) so a combined failure rate of 1.2% (or 1.2 in a 100 will get pregnant while using both), hardly effectively zero. Additionally not every woman can use the pill as there are some serious potential side effects to it.

HellFireClub wrote: »

People don't want to take responsibility for their actions and want a retrospective solution now to be put in place to fix that for them. I say no

Is that line of reasoning only for abortion or do you use it consistently. Lung cancer is a known risk of smoking, should people have to take responsibility for their own actions and be refused medical help for those that get lung cancer?

Rodin

WileyCoyote wrote: »

You have checked with Marie Stopes, The IFPA etc, no I didn't think so.
In economics you will find that where there is a market there will always be a provider.

Did you read my sentence at all?
I know there are people who will provide the service.

My point is that once a third party involved, then the issue is not just the 'couple's business'.

Rodin

Knasher wrote: »

The typical failure rate of the pill and the condom is 8% and 15% respectively (though 0.3% and 2% under ideal circumstances) so a combined failure rate of 1.2% (or 1.2 in a 100 will get pregnant while using both), hardly effectively zero. Additionally not every woman can use the pill as there are some serious potential side effects to it.

Is that line of reasoning only for abortion or do you use it consistently. Lung cancer is a known risk of smoking, should people have to take responsibility for their own actions and be refused medical help for those that get lung cancer?

Now there's an idea.

Death and Taxes

HellFireClub wrote: »

I've LOADS of experience having sex. But another thing I have a lot of experience with, is taking some fúcking responsibility for my actions and if I'm having sex, that I'll be having protected sex! I've also tended to be in long term relationships where if a pregnancy occurred, I don't think myself or any of my respective partners would have wanted to have an abortion, as we would have been like minded people on the subject. If I thought a girl had pro-abortion opinions, I wouldn't get into a relationship with her in the first place.[/QUOTE]

What do you do, hand them a questionaire while your having your first snog?:D:D:D:D

My name is URL

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Hence using phrases like "abortion as a form of contraception". Which is particularly designed to rile. Oh those women and their sex and their 200 abortions. It's one referendum away. Don't you forget it. They'll put it in the water soon enough etc.

How is that designed to rile people? It's a genuine concern for many people who don't fully agree with relaxed abortion laws.

In the US, 50% of women who have an abortion in any given year; have had at least one prior to that, so it's understandable that some would arrive at a conclusion that a growing number of people see it as a fallback for their own lack of precaution.

I personally don't see that as being the case, but the argument itself shouldn't be scoffed at or brushed aside as some sort of conspiracy crap. That doesn't go towards helping anyone change their mind or look at things in a different way.

HeyThereDeliah

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Why misrepresent what I said? Are you running out of logical arguements?
I never said I would RECOMMEND anybody to do anything!
Does saying I believe in the ability to freely buy chocolate mean I am RECOMMENDING that others live on a diet of chocolate?

I'm not misrepresenting you, I'm asking you would you recommend more than one abortion or do you think there should be some guidelines or time frame between abortions?

If abortion is on demand do you have rules or is it a free for all ?

astrofool

HellFireClub wrote: »

Nope, a natural consequence of having unprotected sex, is inevitably going to be a pregnancy. If you don't want to end up pregnant after sex, then use contraception. If a girl is on the pill and a couple are using condoms, there is a practically zero chance of pregnancy.

So if people who use two forms of birth control fall pregnant, you're ok with abortion?

old hippy

HellFireClub wrote: »

I've LOADS of experience having sex. But another thing I have a lot of experience with, is taking some fúcking responsibility for my actions and if I'm having sex, that I'll be having protected sex! I've also tended to be in long term relationships where if a pregnancy occurred, I don't think myself or any of my respective partners would have wanted to have an abortion, as we would have been like minded people on the subject. If I thought a girl had pro-abortion opinions, I wouldn't get into a relationship with her in the first place.

So, you're touting yourself as a role model, now?

There's something called spontaneity, the time, the place, the moment. Not everyone is a shining beacon of protection like you. Stuff happens - not on purpose but it happens.

Sex is a very strong and overwhelming act and sometimes the best intentions go out the window. You may well take precautions but you still don't know squat about sex. If you did, you wouldn't be posting your knee jerk bs here.

I find this pro-abortion term pretty odd, as if those of us who want legislation all think abortion is a great laugh and we all want one.

Abortion isn't something that anybody wants to go through, but it is a potential solution for people who find themselves in a very difficult situation. I respect a woman's right to choose whether to go through an abortion or an unwanted pregnancy.

kunst nugget

Rodin wrote: »

If a condom splits, then you go for the morning after pill. Next . . .
I've seen people put two litres of water in a condom, throw it, and it still doesn't split. Those things are very strong.

And yet amazingly in a bedroom situation they have been known to split… Crazy! It's like some weird sex physics thing going on.

old hippy

Rodin wrote: »

If a condom splits, then you go for the morning after pill. Next . . .
I've seen people put two litres of water in a condom, throw it, and it still doesn't split. Those things are very strong.

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain....

Rodin

kunst nugget wrote: »

And yet amazingly in a bedroom situation they have been known to split… Crazy! It's like some weird sex physics thing going on.

Yeah. And the morning after pill just happens to be out of stock after this unlucky event? Ill woman, split condom, and the morning after pill out of stock.
That's some run of bad luck.