Abortion Discussion

Morag

Absolam wrote: »

So, we should stop making information about adoption available so we can make information about a particular method of abortion available instead? What exactly is wrong with allowing all information to be available?

I have no issues what so ever with all the choices being given to a person who is in a crises pregnancy situation, I wish that there were more supports for those who want to choose continuing the pregnancy, either to rear the child themselves or to put the child up for adoption.

The recent cuts to lone parents supports have been savage and the lack of affordable childcare in this country is absurd.

There is still stigma around giving a child up for adoption, it's not as straight forward as people think, and those who have the strength do to it should be supported.

Absolam wrote: »

What scares exactly did you think it mongered?

The abortion pills are taken orally and let dissolve in the mouth, there is no risk of damage due to perforation. They are on the WHO list of essential medicines and they have less negative side effects then vigara or asprin.

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think it was unreasonable to point out that buying prescription grade medication over the internet (even it is 'prescribed' to you by a doctor you've never met in Guyana) may be a risky undertaking.

Yes ideally there should be a face to face consultation, but when that can not take place due to the laws in this country women will resort to riskier methods, but ordering the puills via women on web is less dangerous then using a implement to end a pregnancy, like a wire hanger or a knitting needle or drinking vinegar to end a pregnancy.

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think there was a suggestion in the program that information (which you seem to have no problem obtaining) about the pills ought to be suppressed in some way? [/URL]

The information I have is due to researching myself online and going to activist training.

Absolam wrote: »

As she could have availed of other abortion options which are legal in those countries but not in this country. What's the difference?

Miss Y couldn't travel, that is the difference and so she suffered horrendously in 'medical care'.

Absolam wrote: »

As above. She could also have had an abortion whilst she was England. Again, I don't see that there's a new argument being made?

That she shouldn't have had to go to the UK, she should have had the health care option here in Ireland with out all the stress and strain travelling caused.

Absolam wrote: »

I'm sure you must mean used by Doctors working with BPAS in the UK, who meet and assess their patients before prescribing the package of pills, as a treatment which they are then accountable (and liable) for?

Actually nurses and midwifes can administer the abortion pills, not just drs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/10869204/Midwives-can-take-leading-role-in-abortions.html They are considered that safe.

Absolam wrote: »

So, it seems from what you say not everyone is mystifed when they hear of abortion pills, anyway. Do you think you have substantially better access to information than the majority of people?

I know I do.

Absolam wrote: »

But to your point, they (and other treatments) can't be administered for such purposes because it is not legal to terminate the life of an unborn child unless the prospective mothers life is endangered by the life of the child.

Where the miscarriage can not be stopped, not bringing it to it's conclusion sooner only causes more suffering, physically, mentally and emotionally.

Absolam wrote: »

Who exactly has suppressed information about them?

Any publication which is seen to promote abortion is subjected to being censored here in Ireland, which is why Alan Shatter's book Laura has been reported to be reviewed and again the 1995 abortion information act restricts what type information can be given to a person and the way it must be conferred.

Also the new protection of life in pregnancy law has a possible 14 year sentence, so by telling someone about the pills, helping them acquired them and being there to help them while they take them, falls under accommodating an abortion and a person can be prosecuted under the new law.

Absolam wrote: »

You seem reasonably well informed about them, and Dr Coulter Smith the Master of the Rotunda spoke quite knowledgeably and openly about them (and their legal usage in Ireland) on the program.

There are two types of pills one is only prescribed and dispensed in maternity hospitals and unit around the country , the other is prescribed for a range of medical conitions and most pharmacies carry them. The second one alone in the right dose can cause an abortion but both are the most effective.

So yes I would expect an ob/gyn to know them and to have prescribe them to patients, as for how I know about them, I have been a reproductive justices activist for 23 years and keep up with all the advancements in contraception as well as the abortion pills, I am not an average lay person.

Absolam wrote: »

Nor is information regarding the pills subject to any greater restriction than other methods of abortion, so I think you're being somewhat misleading by claiming that 'suppression of information about the abortion pills is rife here'.

Other methods are known about culturally and historically, the abortion pills are a newer method and given the ban on information about abortion the last two years have had plenty of people on hearing about them for the first time and usually it is informally.

Absolam

Morag wrote: »

I have no issues what so ever with all the choices being given to a person who is in a crises pregnancy situation.

So you'd agree with Ms Sherlock that presenting all the options is a good thing.

Morag wrote: »

The recent cuts to lone parents supports have been savage and the lack of affordable childcare in this country is absurd.

Undoubtedly, though I'm not sure how you think that follows, but anyway.

Morag wrote: »

There is still stigma around giving a child up for adoption, it's not as straight forward as people think, and those who have the strength do to it should be supported.

I doubt anyone would disagree with that either.

Morag wrote: »

The abortion pills are taken orally and let dissolve in the mouth, there is no risk of damage due to perforation. They are on the WHO list of essential medicines and they have less negative side effects then vigara or asprin.

I think, in fairness, I'd be inclined to ask why the Master of the Rotunda thinks there is a risk of perforation before I dismiss his statement out of hand; he probably has a degree of medical experience in the field most of us lack. Ketamine and morphine are also on the WHO list of essential medicines, but I wouldn't be inclined to suggest using them without medical supervision either.

Morag wrote: »

Yes ideally there should be a face to face consultation, but when that can not take place due to the laws in this country women will resort to riskier methods, but ordering the puills via women on web is less dangerous then using a implement to end a pregnancy, like a wire hanger or a knitting needle or drinking vinegar to end a pregnancy.

The fact that doing one illegal thing isn't as risky as doing another illegal thing doesn't really address the fact that both are risky and illegal though, nor does it justify them. It most assuredly does not make it unreasonable to point out that the less risky of the two undertakings is risky nonetheless. Or do you think Prime Time had a duty to point out that taking prescription medication without a doctors supervision may be risky, but may be less risky than assaulting yourself with a wire hanger or a knitting needle?

Morag wrote: »

The information I have is due to researching myself online and going to activist training.

That doesn't support your allegation that information is being suppressed though?

Morag wrote: »

Miss Y couldn't travel, that is the difference and so she suffered horrendously in 'medical care'.

How exactly is that different from not being able to travel to use other abortion services in other countries? It seems exactly the same.

Morag wrote: »

That she shouldn't have had to go to the UK, she should have had the health care option here in Ireland with out all the stress and strain travelling caused.

That would be an argument for abortion in general, which isn't a new argument, it applies equally to the abortion pill and other methods?

Morag wrote: »

Actually nurses and midwifes can administer the abortion pills, not just drs. They are considered that safe.

Can they administer them if a doctor doesn't remain "in charge throughout"? Are they considered that safe?

Morag wrote: »

I know I do.

Wow! So what relevant information do you have access to that I can't find on the internet?

Morag wrote: »

Where the miscarriage can not be stopped, not bringing it to it's conclusion sooner only causes more suffering, physically, mentally and emotionally.

That doesn't obviate the fact that they (and other treatments) can't be administered for such purposes because it is not legal to terminate the life of an unborn child unless the prospective mothers life is endangered by the life of the child though, it's simply an argument for why, in your opinion, they should.

Morag wrote: »

Any publication which is seen to promote abortion is subjected to being censored here in Ireland, which is why Alan Shatter's book Laura has been reported to be reviewed and again the 1995 abortion information act restricts what type information can be given to a person and the way it must be conferred.

Yes, there is an Abortion Information Act which regulates how information about abortion may be disseminated. That doesn't answer my question though; who exactly has suppressed information about abortion pills?

Morag wrote: »

Also the new protection of life in pregnancy law has a possible 14 year sentence, so by telling someone about the pills, helping them acquired them and being there to help them while they take them, falls under accommodating an abortion and a person can be prosecuted under the new law.

I don't think prosecuting someone for intentionally destroying an unborn human life is the same as suppressing information about abortion pills, sorry. Not least because you can't prosecute someone for destroying an unborn human life until they've done it, and if they've done it then any dissemination of information about abortion pills that may have been a part of the events obviously wasn't suppressed or it wouldn't have happened.

Morag wrote: »

There are two types of pills one is only prescribed and dispensed in maternity hospitals and unit around the country , the other is prescribed for a range of medical conitions and most pharmacies carry them. The second one alone in the right dose can cause an abortion but both are the most effective. So yes I would expect an ob/gyn to know them and to have prescribe them to patients, as for how I know about them, I have been a reproductive justices activist for 23 years and keep up with all the advancements in contraception as well as the abortion pills, I am not an average lay person.

But the above information is also quite readily available on the internet, is it not?
For instance:
What is an abortion pill
Medical abortion pill
Mifepristone
Misoprostol
As suppression goes, this seems to be readily available info?

Morag wrote: »

Other methods are known about culturally and historically, the abortion pills are a newer method and given the ban on information about abortion the last two years have had plenty of people on hearing about them for the first time and usually it is informally.

Well firstly, people hearing about a new method of abortion recently and informally is not even nearly the same thing as a rife suppression of information, and secondly, what ban on information about abortion?

krankykitty

Absolam wrote: »

So you'd agree with Ms Sherlock that presenting all the options is a good thing.

Ms Sherlock has absolutely no interest in presenting ALL the options. only the ones that don't include abortion.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

But the above information is also quite readily available on the internet, is it not?

Perhaps so, but then so is information about the lizard men running the British monarchy.

It's not quite the same as having your GP give you the information in a face-to-face, and then handing you the pills with instruction on using them and a follow up appointment.

Absolam

krankykitty wrote: »

Ms Sherlock has absolutely no interest in presenting ALL the options. only the ones that don't include abortion.

In fairness, I think she's been fairly upfront about not considering abortion to be an option. I doubt anyone would seriously expect her to present it as one.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Perhaps so, but then so is information about the lizard men running the British monarchy.
It's not quite the same as having your GP give you the information in a face-to-face, and then handing you the pills with instruction on using them and a follow up appointment.

That's entirely true, and whilst your rejoinder is not actually relevant to the issue of information being 'suppressed', a salient feature of having a GP give out the information in a face-to-face, and then handing out the pills with instruction on using them and a follow up appointment would be that the GP would be breaking the law.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

In fairness, I think she's been fairly upfront about not considering abortion to be an option.

Well, then, she's just crazy, because we all know it's an option, you just hop off to the UK.

She just thinks it's an option which should be kinda sorta illegal, the way it is today in Ireland.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

That's entirely true, though a salient feature of having a GP give out the information in a face-to-face, and then handing out the pills with instruction on using them and a follow up appointment would be that the GP would be breaking the law.

Yes, which is why we should repeal the 8th amendment and change the law.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well, then, she's just crazy, because we all know it's an option, you just hop off to the UK. She just thinks it's an option which should be kinda sorta illegal, the way it is today in Ireland.

Oh, I doubt she's crazy. She just doesn't agree with you.

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, which is why we should repeal the 8th amendment and change the law.

That's definitely an opinion that's often repeated in these parts.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

Oh, I doubt she's crazy. She just doesn't agree with you.

You mean she thinks travelling to the UK is not an option? That would be crazy, surely?

Or do you mean she thinks that that information should not be given out freely - ie should be suppressed in some way?

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

Oh, I doubt she's crazy. She just doesn't agree with you.

If she thinks it shouldn't be an option, she disagrees with me.

If, as you stated above, she doesn't believe it is an option, she's in la-la land.

eviltwin

Does anyone know what is the law in relation to these abortion pills? Let's say I use them and something goes wrong and I require medical attention. If I present at a hospital are the gardai called? Am I at risk of prosecution? How does that compare to a person who is taken to hospital for a drugs overdose?

volchitsa

eviltwin wrote: »

Does anyone know what is the law in relation to these abortion pills? Let's say I use them and something goes wrong and I require medical attention. If I present at a hospital are the gardai called? Am I at risk of prosecution? How does that compare to a person who is taken to hospital for a drugs overdose?

Good question. This is only speculation, but my understanding is that since it is illegal to take the pills on Irish soil, theoretically at least you could be liable for the 14 year prison term.

But if a doctor didn't report you, he is not (I think) complicit of aiding the abortion itself, so I don't know. He could pretend to believe you had gone to England for the day, I imagine. Would it come under patient confidentiality or would it be the luck of the draw whether or not you consulted a pro-life doctor?

I'd be interested to hear from someone who has some knowledge of the law.

Peregrinus

Is it an offence to take the pill? More usually, when it comes to drugs, the offence is in supplying the drug, or in supplying it without a prescription. By way of analogy, if I turn up in hospital suffering from an overdose of heroin or methadone, I don't get prosecuted, because there is no evidence that I have committed an offence. Nor, typically, do I get reported to the guards - medical ethics, client confidentiality, etc. If the guards get to hear about it, they may interview me, but mainly to find out where I got the stuff, and from whom. If they do prosecute somebody for supplying the stuff to me, in theory I could be prosecuted for aiding and abetting the supply - he couldn't sell it to me if I wouldn't buy it - but in practice they don't.

I'm open to correction, but SFAIK the law on the this drug fits into this model. It's an offence to import, supply, etc, but not to take.

Morag

eviltwin wrote: »

Does anyone know what is the law in relation to these abortion pills? Let's say I use them and something goes wrong and I require medical attention. If I present at a hospital are the gardai called? Am I at risk of prosecution? How does that compare to a person who is taken to hospital for a drugs overdose?

Okay the chances of something going wrong is 1% of cases.
Same as the chance of getting pregnant on the pill is 1% of cases.

If you go to hospital after self administrating the abortion pills, there is no medical test which will show that you have taken them.

Your condition presents as complications during a miscarriage and is treated the exact same way, there is no different in treatment needed.

No medical professional will be able to tell by examination or blood work that you have taken the pills.

If you disclose to any medical professional that you have taken them, the treatment will still be the same.

Medical professionals are not required by law to inform the garda that you have admitted to a self administered abortion.

If they do tell the garda the garda would have no evidence and your statement alone would not be enough to convict you.

Morag

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is it an offence to take the pill?

It is an offense to induce an abortion, which carries up to 14 years in jail.

Peregrinus wrote: »

More usually, when it comes to drugs, the offence is in supplying the drug, or in supplying it without a prescription.

Yes both and it is an offence to import it into the country with out a licence.

Also it is 2 types of pills, one is restricted to hospital use only and the other to prescription only.

Morag

Absolam wrote: »

I think, in fairness, I'd be inclined to ask why the Master of the Rotunda thinks there is a risk of perforation before I dismiss his statement out of hand; he probably has a degree of medical experience in the field most of us lack.

If a woman has had a c section, or uterine scaring then there is a risk of that rupturing, causing a haemorrhage. The abortion pills are not suitable for everyone woman, same way the contraceptive pill is not suitable for every woman.

Absolam wrote: »

The fact that doing one illegal thing isn't as risky as doing another illegal thing doesn't really address the fact that both are risky and illegal though, nor does it justify them.
It most assuredly does not make it unreasonable to point out that the less risky of the two undertakings is risky nonetheless. Or do you think Prime Time had a duty to point out that taking prescription medication without a doctors supervision may be risky, but may be less risky than assaulting yourself with a wire hanger or a knitting needle?

It is way less risky then introducing an implement to the womb, as for the risks of what is considered perscription medication here, but which is OTC in other countries that's complex.

Absolam wrote: »

Wow! So what relevant information do you have access to that I can't find on the internet?

I have taken part in an information workshop about the pills with a memeber of women on web.

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, there is an Abortion Information Act which regulates how information about abortion may be disseminated. That doesn't answer my question though; who exactly has suppressed information about abortion pills?

Seriously? we have a law which suppresses information about abortion and has fines and you can't think who is supressing information about the abortion pills?

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think prosecuting someone for intentionally destroying an unborn human life is the same as suppressing information about abortion pills, sorry. Not least because you can't prosecute someone for destroying an unborn human life until they've done it, and if they've done it then any dissemination of information about abortion pills that may have been a part of the events obviously wasn't suppressed or it wouldn't have happened.
But the above information is also quite readily available on the internet, is it not?

if you know what to look for and what is a reputable site, over the last 2 years I have again and again been asked to explain about the pill and how they work, this information has not been common cultural knowledge but that is changing.

Absolam wrote: »

Well firstly, people hearing about a new method of abortion recently and informally is not even nearly the same thing as a rife suppression of information, and secondly, what ban on information about abortion?

1995 law on abortion information.

eviltwin

Morag wrote: »

Okay the chances of something going wrong is 1% of cases.
Same as the chance of getting pregnant on the pill is 1% of cases.

If you go to hospital after self administrating the abortion pills, there is no medical test which will show that you have taken them.

Your condition presents as complications during a miscarriage and is treated the exact same way, there is no different in treatment needed.

No medical professional will be able to tell by examination or blood work that you have taken the pills.

If you disclose to any medical professional that you have taken them, the treatment will still be the same.

Medical professionals are not required by law to inform the garda that you have admitted to a self administered abortion.

If they do tell the garda the garda would have no evidence and your statement alone would not be enough to convict you.

That's good to know. I must admit my own knowledge of this was pretty bad , I assumed the medical treatment would be able to show up if you had taken the meds and then you would be at the mercy of your doctor. I didn't realise it was impossible to tell. I wonder do many women know that. A miscarriage always needs follow up medical treatment, I wonder how many women who take these pills get that aftercare. That's the thing really, the pill itself is quite safe but I'd imagine the risks to the woman come from an incomplete miscarriage/abortion. If women are understandably scared of what might happen if they go to a doctor then its our laws that are the cause of any potential health issues, not the medication itself.

Loafing Oaf

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is it an offence to take the pill?

Some of these ladies could find themselves in trouble if it is:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/pro-choice-activists-swallow-abortion-pills-after-rail-journey-1.1979576

volchitsa

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Some of these ladies could find themselves in trouble if it is:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/pro-choice-activists-swallow-abortion-pills-after-rail-journey-1.1979576

Not if they weren't pregnant, presumably?

Morag

volchitsa wrote: »

Not if they weren't pregnant, presumably?

They could be still done for having them with out a prescription and for importing with out a licence.

Peregrinus

I don't think having a prescription drug without a prescription is an offence. The offence lies in supplying it without a prescription.

Importing the drugs without a licence is an offence, but a conviction might be difficult, given that they have swallowed the evidence. How are you going to prove that what they brought back from Belfast and swallowed at Connolly was really this drug, and not something they merely claimed was this drug?

Worth pointing out that, so far as I remember, none of the participants in the 1971 contraceptive train were ever charged with offences.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

You mean she thinks travelling to the UK is not an option? That would be crazy, surely?

No, I think she probably would not consider having an abortion to be an option, but I'd say she probably does travel to the UK from time to time, though she probably doesn't imagine travelling to the UK in itself is one of the options that necessarily should be considered by mothers to be. Unless you you're talking about flying at a point when flying is inadvisable I suppose..

volchitsa wrote: »

Or do you mean she thinks that that information should not be given out freely - ie should be suppressed in some way?

I can't imagine how you leapt to that conclusion, but strangely no, I didn't mean that either. Is there anything that she has said that would lead you to believe that she thinks information should be suppressed?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If she thinks it shouldn't be an option, she disagrees with me.

Well, if she thinks it shouldn't be an option, her opinion is probably based on an ethical stance.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

If, as you stated above, she doesn't believe it is an option, she's in la-la land.

But if she believes it isn't an option, her opinion may well be based on a religious or moral stance. Whether or not holding a religious conviction means 'she's in la-la land' is just a matter of opinion.
Anyway, given that she didn't actually say whether she believes abortion is, or should be considered to be, an option, I don't think I'd opine on her position relative to la-la land until I hear her actual opinion.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

No, I think she probably would not consider having an abortion to be an option, but I'd say she probably does travel to the UK from time to time, though she probably doesn't imagine travelling to the UK in itself is one of the options that necessarily should be considered by mothers to be. Unless you you're talking about flying at a point when flying is inadvisable I suppose..

I can't imagine how you leapt to that conclusion, but strangely no, I didn't mean that either. Is there anything that she has said that would lead you to believe that she thinks information should be suppressed?
Well, if she thinks it shouldn't be an option, her opinion is probably based on an ethical stance.
But if she believes it isn't an option, her opinion may well be based on a religious or moral stance. Whether or not holding a religious conviction means 'she's in la-la land' is just a matter of opinion.
Anyway, given that she didn't actually say whether she believes abortion is, or should be considered to be, an option, I don't think I'd opine on her position relative to la-la land until I hear her actual opinion.

You are tied up in knots here, you are making no sense at all.

Also, you began by opining over several posts on what she probably thought - it's a bit late now to suddenly realize that you have tied Ms Sherlock up in knots along with you! :rolleyes:

Taajsgpm

Dont like abortion? dont get one Dont like gays? Dont be one? Dont like carrots? Dont eat them. Let me do what I want and mind your own damn business . You think youre the judge of all things? Let God take care of it if thats not too much to ask, some peoples closed minds make me sick

Absolam

Morag wrote: »

If a woman has had a c section, or uterine scaring then there is a risk of that rupturing, causing a haemorrhage. The abortion pills are not suitable for everyone woman, same way the contraceptive pill is not suitable for every woman.

So.. would that suggest neither he nor the programme were scaremongering?

Morag wrote: »

It is way less risky then introducing an implement to the womb, as for the risks of what is considered perscription medication here, but which is OTC in other countries that's complex.

So both are risky and illegal. That still does not make it unreasonable to point out that the less risky of the two undertakings is risky.

Morag wrote: »

I have taken part in an information workshop about the pills with a memeber of women on web.

Yes, but what I asked you was what relevant information do you have access to that I can't find on the internet?

Morag wrote: »

Seriously? we have a law which suppresses information about abortion and has fines and you can't think who is supressing information about the abortion pills?

Seriously, we have a law which regulates how information about abortion may be disseminated. That doesn't amount to suppression (the information is still readily available), nor does it answer the question: who exactly has suppressed information about abortion pills?

Morag wrote: »

if you know what to look for and what is a reputable site, over the last 2 years I have again and again been asked to explain about the pill and how they work, this information has not been common cultural knowledge but that is changing.

Well I don't really know what you mean by 'common cultural knowledge' so I wouldn't want to comment on it. My question was whether this information was readily available on the internet, which you agree it is. Since that is the case, I don't see how you can claim it is suppressed; it's there for anyone who wants to look.

Morag wrote: »

1995 law on abortion information.

The one which regulates the dissemination of information about abortion?
Specifically, what information about abortion does it ban?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

You are tied up in knots here, you are making no sense at all.

Sorry if you're finding it difficult to follow. In point format:
1) My opinion is that Ms Sherlock does not consider abortion to be an option for pregnant women. This does not mean it is Ms Sherlocks opinion; simply that that is how I perceive her opinion. Speculations about her sanity based on my opinion of her opinion would seem fruitless.
2) Your opinion that Ms Sherlock may think travelling to the UK is not an option for pregnant women does not mean it is Ms Sherlocks opinion either, though you actually (in my opinion) seem to be attempting to imply that she is in some way suggesting that it is not possible for pregnant women to fly to the UK. I doubt she is suggesting this.
3) Your opinion that my doubt as to the questionableness of Ms Sherlocks sanity and her likely disagreement with Zubeneschamalis opinion could be translated as Ms Sherlock thinking that information should not be given out freely - ie should be suppressed, appears to have no foundation in the statement I made. I invite you to point out anything that she has (or I have) said that would lead you to believe that she thinks information should be suppressed (as opposed to simply not volunteered by her).

Does that help you with your knots at all?

volchitsa wrote: »

Also, you began by opining over several posts on what she probably thought - it's a bit late now to suddenly realize that you have tied Ms Sherlock up in knots along with you! :rolleyes:

How so? I doubt she's aware of the conversation, what I think her opinion might be, or Zubeneschamalis opinion of her mental health. I doubt she'd imagine either of us are tied up in knots to be honest.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

But if she believes it isn't an option, her opinion may well be based on a religious or moral stance.

Thousands of women choose this option every year. If Cora thinks it is not an option, she is denying reality.

But actually, I think you just misspoke: Cora thinks nothing of the sort, and you are just tying yourself in knots rather than admit it.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

Sorry if you're finding it difficult to follow. In point format:
1) My opinion is that Ms Sherlock does not consider abortion to be an option for pregnant women. This does not mean it is Ms Sherlocks opinion; simply that that is how I perceive her opinion. Speculations about her sanity based on my opinion of her opinion would seem fruitless.
2) Your opinion that Ms Sherlock may think travelling to the UK is not an option for pregnant women does not mean it is Ms Sherlocks opinion either, though you actually (in my opinion) seem to be attempting to imply that she is in some way suggesting that it is not possible for pregnant women to fly to the UK. I doubt she is suggesting this.
3) Your opinion that my doubt as to the questionableness of Ms Sherlocks sanity and her likely disagreement with Zubeneschamalis opinion could be translated as Ms Sherlock thinking that information should not be given out freely - ie should be suppressed, appears to have no foundation in the statement I made. I invite you to point out anything that she has (or I have) said that would lead you to believe that she thinks information should be suppressed (as opposed to simply not volunteered by her).

Does that help you with your knots at all?

How so? I doubt she's aware of the conversation, what I think her opinion might be, or Zubeneschamalis opinion of her mental health. I doubt she'd imagine either of us are tied up in knots to be honest.

I love this post, you are getting ever more twisted up in those twisty knots you have got yourself entangled in!

Just to reply to one bit for instance, the bolded part : whereas multiple speculations by you about her opinions are not fruitless? :cool: