woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

eviltwin

Brookthechamp wrote: »

Why should the unborn baby suffer the consequences of the mother not having the "presence of mind"?

So you believe a rape victim who is too traumatised to think about the morning after pill should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term? Silly rape victims, they should be well able to think about that kind of thing.

You also have to remember this woman is not Irish and has limited English and might not have even been aware that such a thing as the MAP exists or that she would have been able to access it.

padd b1975

B0jangles wrote: »

Hang on, you specifically asked about the morning after pill being refused due to the befiefs of the doctor/pharmacist. You said nothing whatsoever about rape.

Stop moving the goal-posts.

No, my post was specifically written and examples requested in the context of the pregnancy being the result of being raped in Ireland.

Happy to have clarified this for you.

NuMarvel

padd b1975 wrote: »

There must have been a major change in this girl's behaviour after being raped, where the hell was her family and friends??

Is there any indication that she wasn't being supported by family or friends? Also bear in mind she was an immigrant, possibly an asylum seeker, so she may not have had much of a support network in the first place.

padd b1975 wrote: »

Did she tell the HSE she was raped when she presented herself or did it only come to light when the suicide "reason" was denied?

No one's denied the woman was suicidal. All the media reports agree that the doctors concluded her life was at risk as a result of suicide.

Its Only Ray Parlour

In a world where overpopulation is the root cause of nearly every problem on this planet, it is absolutely stupid to be anything but pro-choice.

We don't have enough natural resources to support our current population of 7 billion, nevermind the projected figure of 12 billion where population growth is set to stabilise. Climate change is also caused by having too many people on this planet burning fossil fuels.

Phoebas

NuMarvel wrote: »

Is there another interpretation for the woman saying she was effectively denied an abortion for months, and for her legal team telling the High Court that her right to an abortion hadn't been facilitated in a timely manner?

Yes. One other interpretation could be that there were two separate applications and the first one wasn't on the ground of suicidal ideation.

But thanks for clarifying the the ST aren't asserting that "they left the woman in question waiting for months on an answer to her application".

P_1

NuMarvel wrote: »

Is there any indication that she wasn't being supported by family or friends? Also bear in mind she was an immigrant, possibly an asylum seeker, so she may not have had much of a support network in the first place.



No one's denied the woman was suicidal. All the media reports agree that the doctors concluded her life was at risk as a result of suicide.

According to the ST article, she was unable to travel to the UK because of immigration issues and she feared the reactions of at least one family member.

Reading between the lines you'd have to conclude that she is an asylum seeker from a majority Muslim country.

strandroad

Phoebas wrote: »

Yes. One other interpretation could be that there were two separate applications and the first one wasn't on the ground of suicidal ideation.

You're making stuff up now.

NuMarvel

myshirt wrote: »

What about convenience abortions?

'Not the right time in my life', or 'I'm too young at 23', or 'I've just applied to be on Big Brother' type stories.

Does anyone support those?

What about the constitutional right to travel overseas for an abortion? Do you support that?

Phoebas

P_1 wrote: »

What is 'doing well' though?

We don't have any other details - but it sounds positive, right?

RobertKK

lazygal wrote: »

Why is that relevant?
You referred to a woman who regretted her abortion, I referred to one who didn't. You seem to think the experience of those who regret having an abortion is the only valid reference.

It is relevant in how life is perceived, which was not sure if it was your point about Caitlin Moran where she put choosing a kitchen as a more difficult choice than her abortion.

P_1

Phoebas wrote: »

We don't have any other details - but it sounds positive, right?

To be honest it sounds like wishy-washy hogwash. It all depends on the context. Like if the child is breathing on their own then clearly they're 'doing well' for the moment, how about the child responding well to being on the ventilator, also 'doing well', the ECG is showing abnormal but acceptable results, again 'doing well' I guess.

padd b1975

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

In a world where overpopulation is the root cause of nearly every problem on this planet, it is absolutely stupid to be anything but pro-choice.

We don't have enough natural resources to support our current population of 7 billion, nevermind the projected figure of 12 billion where population growth is set to stabilise. Climate change is also caused by having too many people on this planet burning fossil fuels.

Someone's been reading the current Dan Brown!

Phoebas

mhge wrote: »

You're making stuff up now.

I'm providing a possible interpretation of the ST reporting - that's all.

There is a lot about the details of this story that are very unclear.

eviltwin

padd b1975 wrote: »

No, my post was specifically written and examples requested in the context of the pregnancy being the result of being raped in Ireland.

Happy to have clarified this for you.

That is assuming the victim gets support as a rape victim, not all women who are raped do. There is a huge stigma attached to rape and a lot of women would rather not contact gardai or a rape crisis centre, those that do will get the map no problem, those that don't disclose rape are at the mercy of the doctor or chemist they go to.

ProfessorPlum

NuMarvel wrote: »

Despite the differences in the various media reports, they all agree that the panel of doctors certified that her life was at risk due to suicide. While we may not know the exact specifics, and nor do we need to, we can reasonably conclude that she applied under the Act because of the threat of suicide.

As for doctors ignoring the legislation, if the Sunday Times article is correct, they left the woman in question waiting for months on an answer to her application; a woman that two psychiatrists assessed as being suicidal. They put both the woman's and unborn's right to life at risk, and she only seems to have gotten movement on the matter because of the threat of a hunger strike. If that's not a case of ignoring the legislation, I don't know what is.

You're assuming she was suicidal at the initial presentation at 8 weeks. That is not mentioned in the article. (And according to the independant, she presented much later). She would have been upset, depressed maybe, but unless she was suicidal, she does not meet the criteria. Asking for an abortion at that stage, which it seems she did, can only result in one answer. According to the ST article, only one application was made under the act, much later, and it was granted. She began hunger strike because at that stage the foetus was viable, and the only termination that could legally be offered was delivery by c section. Later, she agreed to the section, and the baby was delivered.

The only way that the legislation may not have been followed is if there was an unreasonable delay between her being assessed as suicidal and requesting and abortion because of the risk to her life by suicide, andthe granting of that request. There is some suggestion that there may have been a delay, but at this stage the facts are not clear.

Personally, the whole thing is a clusterfûck. If a woman presents at 8 weeks requesting an abortion, especially in the case of rape, but I would argue for any reason, then she should be allowed have it. We already allow it, but only to women who can afford it and have the appropriate travel documents. Instead we have a woman who has been undoubtably traumatised (weather or not the legislation was followed correctly) and a premature infant, who if delivered between 23 and 25 weeks, will be very lucky to get away with anything less than serious lifelong medical issues. Just my tuppence.

padd b1975 wrote: »

Couple of questions need answering......

Was the rape reported to the Gardai, and if it was, why was the morning after pill not administered?

Is this rape now being investigated?

There must have been a major change in this girl's behaviour after being raped, where the hell was her family and friends??

Did she tell the HSE she was raped when she presented herself or did it only come to light when the suicide "reason" was denied?

None of that is in any way relevant to the case.

Phoebas

P_1 wrote: »

To be honest it sounds like wishy-washy hogwash. It all depends on the context. Like if the child is breathing on their own then clearly they're 'doing well' for the moment, how about the child responding well to being on the ventilator, also 'doing well', the ECG is showing abnormal but acceptable results, again 'doing well' I guess.

I suppose we can only hope that 'doing well' in this context means just that. That's what we all want, isn't it?

bumper234

RobertKK wrote: »

A real health problem is different to a healthy womb in terms of a precious place for an unborn life.

You lived in a womb, I lived in a womb, it was our home for several months, when we lived there it was home sweet home and a precious place where we lived in peace, given no one tried to kill us.

Are you saying mental health issues are not "real health problems"?

strandroad

Brookthechamp2 wrote: »

I believe if she leaves it until the 2nd trimester then yes she should. She had greater opportunity than the unborn child to end the pregnancy in the early stages.

She requested 8 weeks in says the Sunday Times. The rest is delays.

padd b1975

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

You didn't ask for a rape victim,
Please try gain

The thread is about a rape victim!!

Looks like every request will have to be qualified from now on....

Corkfeen

padd b1975 wrote: »

Couple of questions need answering......

Was the rape reported to the Gardai, and if it was, why was the morning after pill not administered?

Is this rape now being investigated?

There must have been a major change in this girl's behaviour after being raped, where the hell was her family and friends??

Did she tell the HSE she was raped when she presented herself or did it only come to light when the suicide "reason" was denied?

Many rapes aren't reported till weeks after the event or go entirely unreported. I also find your insinuation that she made it up to be particularly low.

P_1

Phoebas wrote: »

I suppose we can only hope that 'doing well' in this context means just that. That's what we all want, isn't it?

Of course, we can only deal with the situations that we have in front of us and now the main thing that we all should want is that both the mother and child are healthy both mentally and physically.

However the study of History is aimed at avoiding repeating the mistakes of the past. If there's anything we should hope for to come from this is that we change the structures and policies involved so we're not reading about and arguing over a similar case a few months down the line.

NuMarvel

Phoebas wrote: »

Yes. One other interpretation could be that there were two separate applications and the first one wasn't on the ground of suicidal ideation.

I don't see how that's a reasonable interpretation of my post, or any of the facts as reported in the Sunday Times. There's nothing in any of the media reports to indicate that the woman made more than one application.

Phoebas wrote: »

YeBut thanks for clarifying the the ST aren't asserting that "they left the woman in question waiting for months on an answer to her application".

Exactly. The woman herself is asserting it and the ST are reporting that. I hope this helps you understand how journalism works.

ProfessorPlum

mhge wrote: »

She requested 8 weeks in says the Sunday Times. The rest is delays.

It's a technical issue, but an important one because it determines what legal course of action will be allowed.
If a woman requests a termination at 8 weeks, it will be refused unless she is suicidal and there is a risk to her life because of suicidal ideation. Not every rape victim requesting an abortion at 8 weeks is suicidal, and there is nothing written anywhere that says that this woman was suicidal at 8 weeks.

myshirt

The Corinthian wrote: »

Maybe this thread is better off in Consumer Issues?

It is a consumer issue you know.

Precedent after precedent dealt with these cases as 'oh sher that's a right to travel case', or 'sher that's a free movement of goods and services case'.

1983 we amended the constitution, and no statutory legislation ever followed until recently and even that was forced.

This country's approach is do what you want, but not on our doorstep. No arm of the state has will touch this issue with a barge pole in a meaningful way. They won't implement the will of the Irish people.

If anyone left a jurisdiction, with the sole intention and purpose being to commit what is a crime in that jurisdiction; they then commit that crime, and come home.. anything else but abortion and that person would be held to account when returning.

Think about these sick b#stards who go to Nepal to have sex with young boys. Is it right that they try justify it by saying it is ok over there? No, it isn't. They are a pedo. And we have an obligation to stand up against that. Just as we have an obligation to stand up against all other persons who leave this jurisdiction purely to avoid responsibility for a murder they wish to commit.

It's not right.

bumper234

padd b1975 wrote: »

No mention of her being a rape victim though.

Try again.

You asked for examples of the morning after pill being refused on religious grounds not specifically for rape.victims. stop moving the goal posts when your proven to be wrong yet again :rolleyes:

padd b1975

Corkfeen wrote: »

Many rapes aren't reported till weeks after the event or go entirely unreported. I also find your insinuation that she made it up to be particularly low.

Let's just hope she found the strength to make a statement to the Gardai, even if it is some time after the event.



For the record, I insinuated nothing, so you can reverse back up that avenue.

ProfessorPlum

myshirt wrote: »

It is a consumer issue you know.

Precedent after precedent dealt with these cases as 'oh sher that's a right to travel case', or 'sher that's a free movement of goods and services case'.

1983 we amended the constitution, and no statutory legislation ever followed until recently and even that was forced.

This country's approach is do what you want, but not on our doorstep. No arm of the state has will touch this issue with a barge pole in a meaningful way. They won't implement the will of the Irish people.

If anyone left a jurisdiction, with the sole intention and purpose being to commit what is a crime in that jurisdiction; they then commit that crime, and come home.. anything else but abortion and that person would be held to account when returning.

Think about these sick b#stards who go to Nepal to have sex with young boys. Is it right that they try justify it by saying it is ok over there? No, it isn't. They are a pedo. And we have an obligation to stand up against that. Just as we have an obligation to stand up against all other persons who leave this jurisdiction purely to avoid responsibility for a murder they wish to commit.

It's not right.

I look forward to referendum on the issue, and then we can implement the will of the people.

You might be a little surprised what that turns out to be.

Chattastrophe!

Phoebas wrote: »

The reports are that the child is 'doing well'. That's good, isn't is?

From what I've read, the C Section took place at between 23 and 25 weeks gestation. Barely on the brink of viability. The organs would only be half-developed, the lungs wouldn't be functional. Babies that age are born without ears, they are dangerously tiny and not completely formed at all, they're dependent on machinery for several months after birth, and are very likely to have serious long-term health problems.

From what I read, after being in an extremely distressed condition immediately following birth, the baby is now doing well - but "well" is a very relative term when you're talking about such a premature baby.

myshirt wrote: »

What about convenience abortions?

'Not the right time in my life', or 'I'm too young at 23', or 'I've just applied to be on Big Brother' type stories.

Does anyone support those?

Convenience abortions? What the hell is convenient about having an abortion?

Hell yeah I support a woman's right to choose a termination because it's not the right time in their life, or because it doesn't suit their lifestyle, or whatever their reasons may be. I'm guessing you haven't been through pregnancy and childbirth and motherhood yourself? Because while in some ways it is an amazing and beautiful experience, it also quite literally rips your body apart and changes it forever. I would never support forcing a woman to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, no matter what her reasons for ending it were. The priority should be with the woman - it is her body, she is not just an incubator, she should have the right to control over her own body.

Believe it or not, just because someone is pro-choice, it doesn't mean they're pro-abortion - "abortions for all!" I'm completely pro-choice, and yet I'd ideally love if abortions were never necessary. It's not always a traumatic experience, but making the decision - and the procedure itself - can be traumatic for some women. But mistakes happen, contraception fails, human error occurs. The choice needs to be there, and it's completely wrong that we're currently exporting our little "problem" to the UK, rather than accepting that women will get abortions anyways, and giving them the option and support and aftercare here in Ireland. Having to travel to the UK would, I imagine, make the whole experience so much worse.

What happened to this woman is just sickening. Hard to believe it could happen in a supposedly civilised society.

myshirt

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I look forward to referendum on the issue, and then we can implement the will of the people.

You might be a little surprised what that turns out to be.

We've done the referendums. Ireland does not support abortion.

Delirium

myshirt wrote: »

We've done the referendums. Ireland does not support abortion.

when? In what year was there a referendum to allow for abortion?

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