Woman forced to travel to England for abortion calls for law change

Canard

UCDVet wrote: »

Saying she was 'forced' helps frame the tone of the discussion that will follow.

UCDVet wrote: »

the options of either continuing to carrying her baby until it dies, is born, presents a health risk, or to pursue options outside Northern Ireland'

Wow, spoiled for choice. Just how does one make up one's mind?

You forgot to mention that the baby wasn't going to "be born" - it was going to be stillborn. But, as you like to say, that doesn't have the same ring to it.

And why would anyone do something "until it causes a health risk" when it most likely is going to cause one? What about mental health risks?

Grayson

indy_man wrote: »

Sorry Pope but your last statement is complete nonsense. Part of the goal of that video is to prevent abortions in order to save women from this distress and it refers to the plight of one woman who has suffered.

Don't try and push your abortion agenda and claim you have empathy for women.

Anyone who is truly empathic wants the option.
I have no doubt that there are occasions where a termination is very bad for the mental health of a woman. but I also have absolutely no doubt that there are times it's the absolute best for the woman.

Stating that a woman should always or never have an abortion is stupid. Personally, I'd think that the best people to make the decision about wether it's good or bad for the woman would be the woman herself and a mental health professional.

UCDVet

Nodin wrote: »

Lots of reasonable people support a law that forces a woman to either give birth to a child that has no hope of surivival - that is braindead - or travel abroad?

Yes, a lot of reasonable people do. In fact, this woman even admits she supported the law.

The law doesn't say, 'Women shall be forced to give birth to braindead babies'. You are right, nobody would support that.

The law is written to apply to everyone. People are really bad considering all possible options. 'Unintended consequences' and all. It's very hard, near impossible, to come up with a law that doesn't seem inappropriate when applied in some specific situation.

Nodin

UCDVet wrote: »

Yes, a lot of reasonable people do. In fact, this woman even admits she supported the law.

The law doesn't say, 'Women shall be forced to give birth to braindead babies'. You are right, nobody would support that.

The law is written to apply to everyone. People are really bad considering all possible options. 'Unintended consequences' and all. It's very hard, near impossible, to come up with a law that doesn't seem inappropriate when applied in some specific situation.

I can't see "fatal foetal abnormality" causing any reasonable member of the anti abortion side sleepless nights. Presuming there still are some.

Muise...

UCDVet wrote: »

Yes, a lot of reasonable people do. In fact, this woman even admits she supported the law.

The law doesn't say, 'Women shall be forced to give birth to braindead babies'. You are right, nobody would support that.

The law is written to apply to everyone. People are really bad considering all possible options. 'Unintended consequences' and all. It's very hard, near impossible, to come up with a law that doesn't seem inappropriate when applied in some specific situation.

It's not hard. You discuss it with medical and legal experts and always keep the dignity of women in mind. The hard bit is getting a government here or in NI with the balls to face down the likes of Iona and make these laws properly.

Fr_Dougal

indy_man wrote: »

Later on in this video is more information on problems with abortions in UK.

Can I interest you in some miniature American flags?

UCDVet

Muise... wrote: »

Is it really just the term "forced" you have a problem with here?

I don't see how we can discuss this "example" - a person with a traumatic medical problem, who won't have the healthy baby she hoped for - without painting as monsters the people who actively block changes to the law (in NI) that would allow her and others carrying unviable foetuses some dignity and relief from her suffering. Cleft lips have nothing to do with this case.

I mostly agree with you.

But Cleft lips have *everything* to do with this case. In London she could get an abortion based on this:

that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped

They don't have firm standards for what any of those words actually mean. Adding that in NI would mean she could get the abortion. But it would also mean that someone could abort in the case of a cleft lip
http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-opinions/briefings-and-qas-/human-fertilisation-and-embryology-bill/abort

There have been calls for cleft lip and/or cleft palate to be excluded from being classified as a ‘serious handicap'

Most people who would try to block a change to the law, are doing it because they fear the change will open the door for people to abort in situations they disagree with. Again, in London, you *could* abort because of a Cleft Lip. A lot of people aren't okay with that (I am, but that is just my opinion). Nearly every single person I know that support abortion wants some limits to when and how it can be done. I rarely hear anyone say, 'Abortions should be legal at any time, for whatever reason' (I would, but again, just my opinion). So it's just a matter of fighting over specific examples and laws that will allow or disallow what you agree/disagree with.

Muise...

UCDVet wrote: »

I mostly agree with you.

But Cleft lips have *everything* to do with this case. In London she could get an abortion based on this:


They don't have firm standards for what any of those words actually mean. Adding that in NI would mean she could get the abortion. But it would also mean that someone could abort in the case of a cleft lip
http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-opinions/briefings-and-qas-/human-fertilisation-and-embryology-bill/abort



Most people who would try to block a change to the law, are doing it because they fear the change will open the door for people to abort in situations they disagree with. Again, in London, you *could* abort because of a Cleft Lip. A lot of people aren't okay with that (I am, but that is just my opinion). Nearly every single person I know that support abortion wants some limits to when and how it can be done. I rarely hear anyone say, 'Abortions should be legal at any time, for whatever reason' (I am, but again, just my opinion). So it's just a matter of fighting over specific examples and laws that will allow or disallow what you agree/disagree with.

This woman's foetus had no head. I think it's only fair to write laws that help her and not get tangled in hypothetical cases of cleft lips. In the UK, most elective abortions are carried out with the reasoning of protecting the mental health of the mother anyway so whatever is done with the list of abnormalities it could be circumvented if some hypothetical woman was determined to abort a foetus with a cleft lip.

Grayson

Muise... wrote: »

This woman's foetus had no head. I think it's only fair to write laws that help her and not get tangled in hypothetical cases of cleft lips. In the UK, most elective abortions are carried out with the reasoning of protecting the mental health of the mother anyway so whatever is done with the list of abnormalities it could be circumvented if some hypothetical woman was determined to abort a foetus with a cleft lip.

But what if one foot was bigger than the other? In outer mongolia she could get an abortion based on this. And that has EVERYTHING to do with this situation.

UCDVet

Muise... wrote: »

This woman's foetus had no head. I think it's only fair to write laws that help her and not get tangled in hypothetical cases of cleft lips. In the UK, most elective abortions are carried out with the reasoning of protecting the mental health of the mother anyway so whatever is done with the list of abnormalities it could be circumvented if some hypothetical woman was determined to abort a foetus with a cleft lip.

Not disagreeing with you in the slightest. It's great to write laws that help her. I would support such laws. But it's quite hard to write laws in such a manor that don't have undesired implications. Remember when we screwed up the wording of the LPT laws and had to repay thousands of homeowners? A lot of people are afraid that such a mistake would result in (what they see as) murder of hundreds or thousands of people. I personally might not agree with them, but I can hardly fault them for wanting to prevent that situation.

The laws regarding abortion in the case of deformities that would allow this lady to abort in London, would also allow her to abort in the case of a cleft lip - and a lot of people feel that cleft lips do not justify an abortion. It's a real example of how the same law applies in different situations and different people disagree on whether or not it's good.

All I mean is, I can see how we'd have the system we have now, without malice or evil people who want to make some poor girl suffer and give birth to a child that will not live. I don't think vilifying either side does anyone any good and only leads to more poorly thought out laws pushed by emotional appeals and not sound judgement.

Muise...

UCDVet wrote: »

Not disagreeing with you in the slightest. It's great to write laws that help her. I would support such laws. But it's quite hard to write laws in such a manor that don't have undesired implications. Remember when we screwed up the wording of the LPT laws and had to repay thousands of homeowners? A lot of people are afraid that such a mistake would result in (what they see as) murder of hundreds or thousands of people. I personally might not agree with them, but I can hardly fault them for wanting to prevent that situation.

The laws regarding abortion in the case of deformities that would allow this lady to abort in London, would also allow her to abort in the case of a cleft lip - and a lot of people feel that cleft lips do not justify an abortion. It's a real example of how the same law applies in different situations and different people disagree on whether or not it's good.

All I mean is, I can see how we'd have the system we have now, without malice or evil people who want to make some poor girl suffer and give birth to a child that will not live. I don't think vilifying either side does anyone any good and only leads to more poorly thought out laws pushed by emotional appeals and not sound judgement.

I've read through this a few times, and I still don't get it. Do you have no faith at all in laws or people, and do you think we just shouldn't bother in case we get it wrong and people abuse loopholes and call each other names?

UCDVet

Muise... wrote: »

I've read through this a few times, and I still don't get it. Do you have no faith at all in laws or people, and do you think we just shouldn't bother in case we get it wrong and people abuse loopholes and call each other names?

I have some faith in laws and people. I'm all for people improving things and certainly for people fighting for what they believe in. The problem is that nobody agrees on how to do about improving things and we all believe in different things.

My point was just that there isn't any point in painting 'the other group' as irrational or evil. It's not hard to see why the law is the way it is. It's not hard to see some people want the law changed. It's not hard to see why some people have opposed changes to the existing law.

Grayson

UCDVet wrote: »

I have some faith in laws and people. I'm all for people improving things and certainly for people fighting for what they believe in. The problem is that nobody agrees on how to do about improving things and we all believe in different things.

My point was just that there isn't any point in painting 'the other group' as irrational or evil. It's not hard to see why the law is the way it is. It's not hard to see some people want the law changed. It's not hard to see why some people have opposed changes to the existing law.

People who believe something irrational should be called out as being irrational. That goes for someone who thinks it's ok to force a woman to carry a dead foetus until she's forced to go through labour. Just like it's wrong to force a woman to go through FGM. It also includes climate change deniers, people who think the plane in Ukraine is actually MH370, those that think the world is 6000 years old, those who are anti vaccine and people who think pepsi is better than coke.

they're all morons. They should be told so every time they open their mouths to spill their idiotic ideas. Their views should not be entertained and if they try to convince people they are right we should combat it with rational thought and laughter. This who "we're all entitled to our opinions" is a load of bollox. people are suffering because someone thinks they should.

Seriously, anyone who thinks it's right that a woman should carry a dead foetus and be forced to go through a traumatic birth simply because of their beliefs is messed up. The who "it's a baby in there" argument doesn't even hold up. The only person, real or imagined, who is suffering is the woman.

Guy:Incognito

Muise... wrote: »

This woman's foetus had no head. I think it's only fair to write laws that help her and not get tangled in hypothetical cases of cleft lips. .

It shouldn't matter whether the child had no skull or it could be proven it would have grown up to be a genius that cures cancer. It should be squarly down to the woman (or both parents) whether to go ahead with any pregnancy.

Legalise abortion and let the people involved make their own choices.

PucaMama

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

It shouldn't matter whether the child had no skull or it could be proven it would have grown up to be a genius that cures cancer. It should be squarly down to the woman (or both parents) whether to go ahead with any pregnancy.

Legalise abortion and let the people involved make their own choices.

NO. noone should be able to end another life 'just because'

Guy:Incognito

PucaMama wrote: »

NO. noone should be able to end another life 'just because'

That's your choice, so you don't do it. Leave others that have other views to make their choices.

PucaMama

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

That's your choice, so you don't do it. Leave others that have other views to make their choices.

well im glad its not an option in this country

PopePalpatine

PucaMama wrote: »

well im glad its not an option in this country

Gods forbid your daughter suffers an unwanted pregnancy.

Guy:Incognito

PucaMama wrote: »

well im glad its not an option in this country

And theres lots of people that don't want equal rights for Gay people. Maybe they should get their way too?

Why should a woman go through a 9 month pregnancy and have a baby she doesn't want just because you say she has to? Whatever way you want to look at it, what that woman that you don't know and never will does with her body will have no affect on your life.

PucaMama

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Gods forbid your daughter suffers an unwanted pregnancy.

id raise her to deal with it better, not to run away from problems. unwanted pregnancy is not the end of the world.

PucaMama

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

And theres lots of people that don't want equal rights for Gay people. Maybe they should get their way too?

Why should a woman go through a 9 month pregnancy and have a baby she doesn't want just because you say she has to? Whatever way you want to look at it, what that woman that you don't know and never will does with her body will have no affect on your life.

because it is another person that doesnt deserve to pay for its parents mistakes

PopePalpatine

PucaMama wrote: »

because it is another person that doesnt deserve to pay for its parents mistakes

And what if the mother was raped? She doesn't deserve to be violated further.

Guy:Incognito

PucaMama wrote: »

id raise her to deal with it better, not to run away from problems. unwanted pregnancy is not the end of the world.

So you go ahead and deal with it the way you believe is right and want to and let others do the same.

Muise...

PucaMama wrote: »

NO. noone should be able to end another life 'just because'

It's never 'just because.'

PucaMama

PopePalpatine wrote: »

And what if the mother was raped? She doesn't deserve to be violated further.

sigh. one day i will be able to discuss people having abortions for no reason without hearing rape.

krudler

PucaMama wrote: »

well im glad its not an option in this country

You're glad women don't have full control of their own bodies?

bumper234

PucaMama wrote: »

well im glad its not an option in this country

Yet.

bumper234

PucaMama wrote: »

id raise her to deal with it better, not to run away from problems. unwanted pregnancy is not the end of the world.

What if she was raped and became pregnant due to that? Would you still expect her to carry the child to full term?

bumper234

PucaMama wrote: »

sigh. one day i will be able to discuss people having abortions for no reason without hearing rape.

So rape is.or is not a viable reason for a woman to get an abortion?

Muise...

PucaMama wrote: »

sigh. one day i will be able to discuss people having abortions for no reason without hearing rape.

You'll never be able to discuss 'people having abortions for no reason' because they don't. It's not like I had one in my sleep last night and forgot about it; there's always a reason that a pregnancy is not wanted. These reasons might not be agreeable to you, but that's OK because it's not your unwanted pregnancy so you won't be in on that particular discussion anyway.

krudler

PucaMama wrote: »

sigh. one day i will be able to discuss people having abortions for no reason without hearing rape.

And even if a woman wants an abortion for "no reason" (like women do it for the laugh or something) that reason is her reason not yours. Your life isnt affected in anyway whatsoever by abortion being legally and safely available to those who want or need it regardless of how you think you'd handle the situation.

Shenshen

PucaMama wrote: »

well im glad its not an option in this country

Only it is... thousands of women in this country make that decision every year to travel abroad to have an abortion.

Just because they can't have one close to home doesn't mean they can't or don't have them. To think otherwise is simply closing your eyes to reality.

Shenshen

PucaMama wrote: »

sigh. one day i will be able to discuss people having abortions for no reason without hearing rape.

I have yet to hear about a single example of someone having an abortion for no reason....