woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Phoebas

Czarcasm wrote: »

1. Ignored the fact that she was suicidal

I'm not sure why you conclude that they ignored this fact - they agreed that she was suicidal and progressed according to the law. In what respect did they ignore the fact?

Czarcasm wrote: »

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

Where did you get this idea from? The newspaper reported the following:

The HSE went to the High Court to get a care order to prevent her from starving herself.

Czarcasm wrote: »

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

She agreed to the caesarian. I don't know where you got the idea that they decided the timetable for it. She presumably could have had it at any point she wanted (or she could have gone to term).

takamichinoku

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Incidentally getting to vent my feelings onsome of the posts in the thread you mention was well worth being banned for 48 hours.

I'm sure it was, as far as I can see you only made this thread in the hope you could get yourself a second dose...

bumper234

Buildasnowman wrote: »

That was her mistake, she should bear the responsibility for her own mistake, not the unborn baby/foetus.

How do you know she wasn't a victim of rape?

P_1

Please excuse any ignorance on my part but wouldn't an abortion at that stage of pregnancy require a surgical procedure not too dissimilar to a c-section?

Mandyxxx

I would consider myself to be pro-choice but I would like to make the following points:

- If a pregnancy is a threat to a woman's physical or psychological wellbeing she should be entitled to terminate it. Terminate means to end. If the foetus is viable removing it and giving it care is NOT a violation of the woman's rights as it is no longer a threat to her wellbeing.

- If she was allowed an abortion (ie to destroy the foetus) this would still involve giving birth through vaginal delivery, I presume, at this late stage. Still a difficult procedure for the woman, a point made by P_1 above.

- At some stage in the future when she is trying to recover from and move on from her experience she will have the consolation that the child she was unable to welcome has been given a chance. Adoption is a perfectly acceptable solution to unplanned pregnancy. Such is life.

It is only in recent years that the abortion debate has opened up and people are beginning to recognise that the rights of the unborn must be balanced against the impact of a pregnancy on an individual woman, physically and psychologically. For pro-choicers to advocate late abortions, when early delivery of the child is possible, will only polarize the debate and stifle it.

Corkfeen

conorh91 wrote: »

From the tiny bit of information that has been released via the Indo, the new law seems to have worked very well.

In this country, there is no possibility of aborting viable life in pregnancy.

This woman was offered a termination—a termination of her pregnancy—which ended in a healthy infant being born, it seems.

Great.

Why are people so angry about this? I'm not seeing the problem.

The woman was confirmed as suicidal,they forced her to wait for a c-section when the foetus was viable. During this period she was on hunger strike. She finally gave in and had a c-section but realistically it can be viewed as a forced c-section. She was given no choice in the matter. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to see that this was an emotionally and physically scarring event for a woman who was already suffering from suicidal ideation. It had complete disregard for the woman's mental health.

leeroybrown

Buildasnowman wrote: »

That was her mistake, she should bear the responsibility for her own mistake, not the unborn baby/foetus.

It's irrelevant. She should still be able to abort if she wants to. She would have been in most other civilised countries.

Your's is the typical pro-life attitude. Blame the mother. Save the baby at all costs.

P_1

Buildasnowman wrote: »

The mental health of someone is quite a few rungs below the life of a baby that can survive through a c section.

Since when? The priority should always be to put the mother's health (physical and mental) first.

leeroybrown

Buildasnowman wrote: »

Do you base all your ethical decisions on what other people do or can you see the world through your own eyes and come to your own conclusions?

It'll make it very clear and simple for you. I'm pro-choice. I think the mother should have been able to abort without question. I think our abortion laws are a horrible abuse of the mother's rights.

P_1

Buildasnowman wrote: »

Why?

Do I really have to explain this to you? You prioritise the existing life when it comes to a choice between one or the other.

Phoebas

leeroybrown wrote: »

It's irrelevant. She should still be able to abort if she wants to. She would have been in most other civilised countries.

Not at 25 weeks she wouldn't.

bumper234

Buildasnowman wrote: »

In the event she was raped there would be the opportunity to get the morning after pill or an early abortion. Whilst it would obviously be a horrific event to be subjected to, it doesn't justify ending the life of the unborn baby/foetus so late in the pregnancy such that it is capable of feeling pain.

The baby never had any chance or choice what so ever.

But she didn't know she was pregnant until the 2nd trimester and as for the morning after pill? Well maybe she was raped and was too scared to report it and didn't think of it. Not saying this happened but it has the potential to happen.

Phoebas

P_1 wrote: »

Do I really have to explain this to you? You prioritise the existing life when it comes to a choice between one or the other.

In this case that choice didn't exist and the final result is two living people.

P_1

Phoebas wrote: »

In this case that choice didn't exist and the final result is two living people.

Well that remains to be seen, we don't have all the facts but it isn't beyond all possibilities that an abortion was viable but the lady in question was fobbed off until it wasn't.

Phoebas

P_1 wrote: »

Well that remains to be seen, we don't have all the facts but it isn't beyond all possibilities that an abortion was viable but the lady in question was fobbed off until it wasn't.

True - we don't have all the details, but we do know that there are two living people.
We don't have any evidence that she was fobbed off.

mrsbyrne

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

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

When I started this thread the most up to date info eas that she wasn't suicidal. Check the link I posted. It's even more disturbing that the babies life was only spared because an obstetric couldnt kill it.

miss no stars

I thought that the protection of life during pregnancy act gave the right to a termination of pregnancy where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother.

Not a destruction of the life of the baby, a termination of pregnancy. Which is what she got.

Presumably she can put the baby up for adoption now.

This is such a hot button issue that I think individual choice is the only ethical way to go - we all have differing beliefs and moral codes that we each live by, we all live in different scenarios and have different backgrounds. How I should be able to determine that Mary down the road - who works as a contractor, never wanted kids, is financially hanging on by her fingernails and simply does not want the zygote inside her to go to term, or maybe who was raped and the thought of giving birth to her rapist's child makes her almost suicidal - should have to complete the pregnancy, take that time off work, go through the very real risk of childbirth for a child she doesn't want and THEN either have to raise the child, or give the child up for adoption and answer all the awkward questions about "but where's the baby?". It's not like being heavily pregnant is something easily missed. Why should I, or anyone here, get to decide something so enormous for someone else?

krudler

miss no stars wrote: »

I thought that the protection of life during pregnancy act gave the right to a termination of pregnancy where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother.

Not a destruction of the life of the baby, a termination of pregnancy. Which is what she got.

Presumably she can put the baby up for adoption now.

This is such a hot button issue that I think individual choice is the only ethical way to go - we all have differing beliefs and moral codes that we each live by, we all live in different scenarios and have different backgrounds. How I should be able to determine that Mary down the road - who works as a contractor, never wanted kids, is financially hanging on by her fingernails and simply does not want the zygote inside her to go to term, or maybe who was raped and the thought of giving birth to her rapist's child makes her almost suicidal - should have to complete the pregnancy, take that time off work, go through the very real risk of childbirth for a child she doesn't want and THEN either have to raise the child, or give the child up for adoption and answer all the awkward questions about "but where's the baby?". It's not like being heavily pregnant is something easily missed. Why should I, or anyone here, get to decide something so enormous for someone else?

Because what goes on in a woman's womb is everyone's business apparently.

Corkfeen

Buildasnowman wrote: »

The mental health of someone is quite a few rungs below the life of a baby that can survive through a c section.

Firstly, they waited for it to be viable. Secondly, a baby delivered at 25 weeks or earlier may or may not survive and it could potentially have long term effects upon their health. However by following this route, you are going to have long term mental damage done to a person who's currently walking around.

This fascinates me, a person's life and well being becomes less valuable after they are born. You have clearly stated that the foetus should be put above the mental health of a person.

Phoebas

Corkfeen wrote: »

Firstly, they waited for it to be viable.

There is no evidence for this.

conorh91

Czarcasm wrote: »

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

I am in agreement that where a mother is unhappy with being pregnant, then she may avail of the Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act 2013, and have her pregnancy terminated.

What she cannot do, and quite rightly, is be able to turn around and say "WELL it's not just that I don't want this viable foetus for myself, I want this viable foetus to be made to die after he is born"

Nobody has the right to demand the death of another human being in this way.

kowloon

green_screen wrote: »

So does a foetus. While it's in the uterus, it's a foetus, medically speaking. Calling it a baby, when it's not, is emotional bollocks thrown about by militant pro-lifers.

In fairness, both sides engage in this, the idea that a foetus levels up to full baby in an instant is also rubbish. There's an overlap between the age a baby can be saved and the latest term abortion allowed (in the UK, seeing as our laws are totally inadequate).

conorh91

Corkfeen wrote: »

they forced her to wait for a c-section when the foetus was viable.

I must have missed that. Do you have a link to the doctors admitting such scheme?

Turtwig

conorh91 wrote: »

I must have missed that. Do you have a link to the doctors admitting such scheme?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0816/637562-abortion-refusal/

The woman was assessed by a panel of three experts, It was agreed that she had suicidal thoughts.

The panel said that it would be best to wait to have the baby delivered when it was considered viable.

The woman was alleged to have commenced hunger strike on hearing this.

Original Source seems to be the Irish Independent. Not sure how accurate or inaccurate it is. The claim being made is that she was made wait until the foetus is viable.

That's so messed up

conorh91

Turtwig wrote: »

Original Source seems to be the Irish Independent. Not sure how accurate or inaccurate it is. The claim being made is that she was made wait until the foetus is viable.

But my reading of that is a lot simpler than any cynical interpretation of it.

My understanding is that the panel initially rejected a terminaton.

Hunger strike commenced. Then a termination was granted.

I don't see the issue here. a healthy baby was born, he will presumably go to live in an adoptive home where he will be loved and cherished.

People are getting awfully upset over the fact that the baby didn't die.

yellow hen

PucaMama wrote: »

So even though she had the option of a section she still wanted the baby killed. Disgusting.

There is zero logic or intellect in that statement.

Phoebas

Turtwig wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0816/637562-abortion-refusal/



Original Source seems to be the Irish Independent. Not sure how accurate or inaccurate it is. The claim being made is that she was made wait until the foetus is viable.

That reporting is at odds with what the Indo are saying.

Indo wrote:

The psychiatrists on the panel determined her life was at risk as she had suicidal thoughts. But the consultant obstetrician said the baby could be delivered as it was far enough into the pregnancy.

The panel decided the baby should be delivered. The child was born at 25 weeks and is understood to be doing well.

After initially refusing to have the baby delivered, the woman ultimately agreed.

"She applied for a termination and was rejected. She then went on a hunger and fluid strike," a source said.

Edit: RTE are saying that "it was first reported in the Irish Independent this morning but more details have emerged throughout the day", so they might be more up to date.

Czarcasm

miss no stars wrote: »

I thought that the protection of life during pregnancy act gave the right to a termination of pregnancy where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother.

Not a destruction of the life of the baby, a termination of pregnancy. Which is what she got.

Presumably she can put the baby up for adoption now.

If I may point you to the relevant section of the Act that applies here -

Risk of loss of life from suicide

9. (1) It shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended where—

(a) subject to section 19 , three medical practitioners, having examined the pregnant woman, have jointly certified in good faith that—

(i) there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life by way of suicide, and

(ii) in their reasonable opinion (being an opinion formed in good faith which has regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable) that risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure,

and

(b) that medical procedure is carried out by an obstetrician at an appropriate institution.

(2) Of the 3 medical practitioners referred to in subsection (1)(a)—

(a) one shall be an obstetrician who practises as such at an appropriate institution,

(b) one shall be a psychiatrist who practises as such at an appropriate institution, and

(c) one shall be a psychiatrist who practises as such—

(i) at an approved centre, or

(ii) for, or on behalf of, the Executive,

or both.

(3) Of the 2 psychiatrists referred to in subsection (2), at least one shall be a psychiatrist who provides, or who has provided, mental health services to women in respect of pregnancy, childbirth or post-partum care.

(4) If practicable, at least one of the medical practitioners referred to in subsection (1)(a) shall, with the pregnant woman’s agreement, consult with the woman’s general practitioner (if any) for the purposes of obtaining information in respect of the woman from that general practitioner that may assist the medical practitioners in their decision as to whether or not to make a section 9 certification in respect of the woman.

(5) Subject to section 19 , the certifying obstetrician shall—

(a) forward, or cause to be forwarded, the section 9 certification to an appropriate institution, and

(b) make such arrangements as may be necessary for the carrying out of the medical procedure to which the section 9 certification relates at the appropriate institution.

Source: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/en/act/pub/0035/sec0009.html#sec9

The wording doesn't say "termination of a pregnancy". It specifically states "an unborn human life is ended".

Any decisions taken thereafter as regards the welfare of the baby will most likely disregard the will of the mother in favour of what authorities will deem is in the best interests of the child.

Turtwig

conorh91 wrote: »

But my reading of that is a lot simpler than any cynical interpretation of it.

My understanding is that the panel initially rejected a terminaton.

Hunger strike commenced. Then a termination was granted.

I don't see the issue here. a healthy baby was born, he will presumably go to live in an adoptive home where he will be loved and cherished.

People are getting awfully upset over the fact that the baby didn't die.

I could see your point until the segment in bold.

The issue is that the ends, whether you agree with them or not, were achieved through incredibly ugly means if the claims made in the Indo are true. This woman is likely scarred for life from her ordeal. Whatever way you look at it it's an absolute mess.