woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

fro9etb8j5qsl2

Phoebas wrote: »

There is no evidence whatsoever. We know that she presented in her third trimester and that the baby was delivered in week 25.

Everything else on the timeline is speculation. But some speculation (she presented not very long before the caesarian) is more likely that other speculation (she presented 11-12 weeks before the caesarian).

Actually, she presented in her SECOND trimester and they estimated that she was BETWEEN 23-25 weeks gestation.

Speculation is speculation, at the end of the day it doesn't matter what YOU deem to be more likely. Unless you have some information that we don't, you cannot say for certain whether she was 13 or 22 weeks when she first requested the termination.

lazygal

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Such as?
You can refuse medical procedures, the only way to force you is by court order.

I don't know a woman who's had a baby in Ireland who hasn't had something done during pregnancy, labour and birth where consent was never sought (eg "I'm just going to do this") or a lack of consent was ignored or the woman was put under serious pressure to consent without all risks being outlined. I had a doctor only agree to my wishes because my husband stepped in and I used the phrase "I do not consent to that" which he said he needed to "checkwith hubby" about. Pregnancy, labour and birth are extremely emotional and tiring times and consent around procedures is very muddy.

conorh91

Czarcasm wrote: »

The State decided to provide an abortion service to a woman at risk of suicide

No it didn't.

In every case where foetal life is viable, there is an obligation to save the life of the foetus after the termination of the pregnancy.

This is why we don't have an "Abortion" Act. We have a Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. The distinction is not merely rhetorical. It has real meaning.

_Whimsical_

Czarcasm wrote: »

An abortion was denied to her, and she was left with no choice but to agree to a caesarean. There are even fewer jurisdictions where when someone asks for an abortion, they are instead given a choice between a caesarean and a natural birth.

...

The laws weren't broken, they were always going to be inadequate in the first place. Much like the way if a woman at risk of suicide asks for an abortion and she's offered a caesarean, it's not breaking the letter of the law, but it sure as hell isn't acting in the spirit of the law, nor is it acting in her best interests, nor the interests of the child. It's only serving the interests of people who have no regard for the woman in question, and would rather force two people to suffer than alleviate the suffering of one.

Actually there are few jurisdictions who will give her the option of a caesarean in late or mid pregnancy on the basis of being suicidal.


In regard to your second point the enactment of the legilation in this case is not only to the spirit of the act but what happened here is exactly what was provided for within it. The act provides for termination of pregnancy, not abortion as such. Termination of pregnancy does not mean termination of the child in every case. That a viable baby would be born by caesarian was always the plan in such circumstances under this legislation.

Phoebas

Czarcasm wrote: »

An abortion was denied to her, and she was left with no choice but to agree to a caesarean. There are even fewer jurisdictions where when someone asks for an abortion, they are instead given a choice between a caesarean and a natural birth.

Hardly no choice.
She could continue with the pregnancy or she could travel to a jurisdiction that allows late term abortions or (thankfully she didn't choose this one) carry through with the suicide.
I'm not sure what other choices she could practically have been given - I don't think there is any appetite for late term abortions in this country.

Czarcasm wrote: »

What does a woman forced by the State to give birth against her will call it? The State decided to provide an abortion service to a woman at risk of suicide, and then when a woman at risk of suicide wants to avail of the service she is told she will not be offered an abortion, but will instead be forced to give birth, whether through natural means, or by means of a caesarean, she will give birth whether she wants to or not, even if she has to be carved open to make sure she does no harm to the baby by doing no harm to herself.

She wasn't forced to do anything. She went looking for a service that wasn't available and she chose another service that was. She could have simply walked away.

Czarcasm wrote: »

The law says it allows for a woman at risk of suicide to have an abortion at any stage of her pregnancy.

It allows for a caesarian - so I agree with your updated position that there was no law broken and that the decision does not 'completely contradicts legislation'.



I'm not sure what changes in the law people would like to see to deal with cases like this. Abortion on demand (in the case of suicide ideation) up to 30 weeks - 35 weeks - 40 weeks?

ProfessorPlum

Czarcasm wrote: »

The law says it allows for a woman at risk of suicide to have an abortion at any stage of her pregnancy. You can read a more general overview of the relevant legislation here -

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Life_During_Pregnancy_Act_2013


The laws weren't broken, they were always going to be inadequate in the first place. Much like the way if a woman at risk of suicide asks for an abortion and she's offered a caesarean, it's not breaking the letter of the law, but it sure as hell isn't acting in the spirit of the law, nor is it acting in her best interests, nor the interests of the child. It's only serving the interests of people who have no regard for the woman in question, and would rather force two people to suffer than alleviate the suffering of one.

The law does not allow abortion at any stage. I would also disagree and say this case was very much in the spirit of the current law that we have. Unfortunately the constitution as it stands dictates that this is the case.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Deleted User wrote: »

So you're just slightly less or a pro-life nutjob than I apparently am?

I'm very pro life. I believe life should be enjoyed to the fullest.

You however are anti-choice. I am pro-choice. I don't understand how you can claim that I also am anti-choice, seeing as I am in favor of choice.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

The law does not allow abortion at any stage. I would also disagree and say this case was very much in the spirit of the current law that we have. Unfortunately the constitution as it stands dictates that this is the case.

Unfortunately you are correct.
The precise wording of the new law specifically refers to the "ending of the pregnancy".
Therefore to do this before 24 weeks would amount to a termination and after this may amount to a birth

We need a better law.

Phoebas

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Unfortunately you are correct.
The precise wording of the new law specifically refers to the "ending of the pregnancy".
Therefore to do this before 24 weeks would amount to a termination and after this may amount to a birth

We need a better law.

I thought you were in favour of a 24 week cut off?
::

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

In my opinion if you kill/terminate/abort (whatever) something that can live independently from it's mother then it's unethical and immoral

Cleveland Hot Pocket wrote: »

Yes, which is why I believe that the difference between fetus and viable fetus at 24 weeks is all important.

RDM_83 again

From my understanding nearly every country simply legislates for a termination of pregnancy, as the vast majority of countries have a cut off point of a minimum of 24 weeks (and thats pretty late actually many countries with liberal regimes actually have lower dates), so the termination of pregnancy results in the termination of fetal life. If the later dates are when she presented herself, even in countries with liberal regimes in relation to abortion what occurred in Ireland, would have occurred there too.

Until we actually have some more details about dates this is a pretty piss poor case to become outraged about Irelands 'backwardness' unless what posters are arguing for is for here to have a regime thats far far more lax than the European norm.

bumper234

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

But there are the most qualified people doing what they do.

If you thought your mother/brother/sister was suicidal and a doctor (after an interview or two) said he/she wasn't suicidal even though he/she still insisted they still felt suicidal, would you be satisfied with that answer?

Molester Stallone II

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Are you saying the qualified people are wrong? How did she try to take her own life? Hunger strike? She soon quit?

Yes, of course they were wrong, but that doesn't suit your attack on this woman does it.

Czarcasm

conorh91 wrote: »

No it didn't.

In every case where foetal life is viable, there is an obligation to save the life of the foetus after the termination of the pregnancy.

This is why we don't have an "Abortion" Act. We have a Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act. The distinction is not merely rhetorical. It has real meaning.

It simply means in this case (and Morag referred to Section 8 earlier), that the life of the unborn takes precedence over the woman who despite being at risk of suicide, despite self-imposed starvation, is still forced to give birth against her will, by whatever means necessary, even if that means mutilating her body, or forcing her to give birth by means of vaginal delivery. Her body is not her own, she is merely a biological incubation vessel.

Cleveland Hot Pocket

Phoebas wrote: »

I thought you were in favour of a 24 week cut off?
::

I am, but that is in a situation of abortion being available on demand (or at all) when at the moment it isnt.

Czarcasm

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Actually there are few jurisdictions who will give her the option of a caesarean in late or mid pregnancy on the basis of being suicidal.


In regard to your second point the enactment of the legilation in this case is not only to the spirit of the bill but what happened here is exactly what was provided for within it. The bill provides for termination of pregnancy, not abortion as such. Termination of pregnancy does not mean termination of the child in every case. That a viable baby would be born by caesarian was always the plan in such circumstances under this legislation.

Interesting interpretation of the law you have there. The Act would have been unnecessary if all it concerned was termination of a pregnancy by delivering a child. That a viable baby would be born certainly wasn't the plan for a woman who did not want to give birth, and sought every means to prevent that from happening, but was force fed and forced to give birth by caesarean section.

I really think you're missing the bigger picture here.

mrsbyrne

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

Yes, of course they were wrong, but that doesn't suit your attack on this woman does it.

Direct me to my attack on anybody please. Thanks.
Your assertion that you are more qualified then the professionals on the panel in this case is intriguing.
You also appear to have inside info on the cass. The plot thickens.

catallus

How can anyone who is pro-choice accept term-limits on abortions? If it is a woman's choice then surely it should be her choice up to the point of birth?

Turtwig

catallus wrote: »

How can anyone who is pro-choice accept term-limits on abortions? If it is a woman's choice then surely it should be her choice up to the point of birth?

The same reason people who advocate the use of paracetamol don't expect you to take 5g each hour. Everything has acceptable limits.

mrsbyrne

Buildasnowman wrote: »

Her body is not her own you say, at least she got to maje her choices to be in that situation, the baby didn't get that chance, what about the baby's body?

Apparently it's not a baby it's s foetus and you need to grow up and stop being so emotional.

takamichinoku

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Direct me to my attack on anybody please

It seems like most your posts have a passive aggressive attack toward someone or another. After how your last venture in this forum went, to be starting this thread yourself implies you were loving the idea of getting to stir **** a bit, fight the good fight and be a bit of a martyr, all of that.

mrsbyrne

takamichinoku wrote: »

It seems like most your posts have a passive aggressive attack toward someone or another. After how your last venture in this forum went, to be starting this thread yourself implies you were loving the idea of getting to stir **** a bit, fight the good fight and be a bit of a martyr, all of that.

So there's no evidence of an attack. You don't like my posting style and you don't want to report any of my posts. Any contribution to the topic in hand at all? Is fighting the good fight against forum rules? Incidentally getting to vent my feelings onsome of the posts in the thread you mention was well worth being banned for 48 hours.

Czarcasm

Buildasnowman wrote: »

Her body is not her own you say, at least she got to maje her choices to be in that situation, the baby didn't get that chance, what about the baby's body?

Nobody here actually knows how this woman became pregnant, so you really can't say with any certainty whether she had a choice in the matter or not.

Without meaning to point out the obvious yet again, but you can't speak for what decisions the unborn baby would have made either.

The baby's body is completely dependent upon the mother's survival, and if she had not been force fed, and forced to give birth by cesarean section, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

If you're going to ignore the will of a woman who CAN actually speak for herself, then you're unlikely to care what a person who can't speak for themselves might think. You also can't suggest that they would agree with your line of thought.

_Whimsical_

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Such as?
You can refuse medical procedures, the only way to force you is by court order.

No it was in the news recently a midwife broke waters or something which increased the chance of passing on some disease the woman had, to the baby, even though the woman had said repeatedly she didn't consent
That was my understanding
I'll go have a look

UCDCritic

This thread should called:

Babies Life SAVED!!!!

Delirium

bluewolf wrote: »

No it was in the news recently a midwife broke waters or something which increased the chance of passing on some disease the woman had, to the baby, even though the woman had said repeatedly she didn't consent
That was my understanding
I'll go have a look

on phone so can only post link.

http://mindthebaby.ie/2014/08/05/high-court-says-we-cant-say-no/

Presume it's the case you are referring to.

Molester Stallone II

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Direct me to my attack on anybody please. Thanks.
Your assertion that you are more qualified then the professionals on the panel in this case is intriguing.
You also appear to have inside info on the cass. The plot thickens.

You state she wasn't suicidal, incorrect, but don't let reality come into your self righteous posts

Czarcasm

UCDCritic wrote: »

This thread should called:

Babies Life SAVED!!!!

It depends on your perspective really. The baby's life was saved by ignoring the will of the person on whom the baby was dependent upon to keep it alive in the first place, until such a time as the baby could be removed by mutilating the person whom was forced to continue to nourish the baby, while authories -

1. Ignored the fact that she was suicidal

2. Obtained a court order to force feed her to nourish the baby

3. Carved her open to take out the baby at the earliest opportunity before she put it at any further risk.

But yeah, baby saved, we're not supposed to care that the end in no way justifies the means, not to mention the uncertain future that this woman is faced with, let alone the child she was forced to give birth to against her will, who won't always be a cute ickle baby, but will grow up to become an adult who's mother never wanted to give birth to them in the first place.

I think you're being incredibly short sighted that you haven't thought about these things tbh.

Czarcasm

Buildasnowman wrote: »

We know she wanted to abort in the 2nd trimester, I find that incredibly selfish.

How do you feel about the poeple that -

Czarcasm wrote: »

1. Ignored the fact that she was suicidal

2. Obtained a court order to force feed her to nourish the baby

3. Carved her open to take out the baby at the earliest opportunity before she put it at any further risk.

They were just as selfish, only they had more power to impose their will than the person who would actually be most affected by the consequences of their decision. I think using the word 'selfish' to describe their actions would be incredibly kind to them.

Awkward Badger

Buildasnowman wrote: »

We know she wanted to abort in the 2nd trimester, I find that incredibly selfish.

She only found out she was pregnant in the second trimester.

catallus

Czarcasm wrote: »

I think you're being incredibly short sighted that you haven't thought about these things tbh.

Have you thought about the possibility that the psychologists and doctors and judges have thought about these things?

I think it incredibly vain that anyone deigns to know more than those who are faced with the facts and who have the expertise to take action.