woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Ralphdejones

Frito wrote: »

Yes, I would be of a similar opinion to Mountainsandh. I can't see how this is wrong.

Will you be honest enough to tell this child later in life, that if it were up to you, they should not be alive ?

Mountainsandh

No no no, you are again using semantics to muddle the water. When a woman has missed one or two periods, there are not two "people". There is one person gestating an embryo that May or may not become a foetus and May or may not eventually be born and become a child.

There would be one person, starting the process of dealing with a rape, without the constant reminder of it, and for the next 274 days, with the prospect of having to deal with the consequence of someone else's violent aggression.

You ignored my post earlier, so I fully expect you will again refuse to even try to understand.

Frito

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Will you be honest enough to tell this child later in life, that if it were up to you, they should not be alive ?

It's not upto me though, is it?
Would I tell someone I agree with the choice of abortion? Yes.
Even if they were to tell me their parents had considered aborting them? Yes.

Mountainsandh

And please reread my earlier post on why I think that yes indeed, an abortion will start the healing process for a woman who has been raped, not going to type it all again.

Ralphdejones

Mountainsandh wrote: »

No no no, you are again using semantics to muddle the water. When a woman has missed one or two periods, there are not two "people". There is one person gestating an embryo that May or may not become a foetus and May or may not eventually be born and become a child.

There would be one person, starting the process of dealing with a rape, without the constant reminder of it, and for the next 274 days, with the prospect of having to deal with the consequence of someone else's violent aggression.

You ignored my post earlier, so I fully expect you will again refuse to even try to understand.

Periods now ? Aborting a child is not a period.

Ralphdejones

Mountainsandh wrote: »

And please reread my earlier post on why I think that yes indeed, an abortion will start the healing process for a woman who has been raped, not going to type it all again.

How does killing an innocent life, "start the healing process" ?

gctest50

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Periods now ? Aborting a child is not a period.

where do they abort children ?

the UK ? Netherlands ? Spain ? where ?

Ralphdejones

gctest50 wrote: »

where do they find children to abort in a womans body at 24 weeks ?

How do they suddenly become a child at 25 weeks ?

Mountainsandh

Ralphdejones wrote: »

How does killing an innocent life, "start the healing process" ?

By freeing the woman from the daily reminder of the rape, please read my earlier post.

When it is still time to administer medication to abort, the abortion is indeed like a heavy period with an embryo that does not look like a child, and is indeed a clump of cells.

gctest50

Ralphdejones wrote: »

How do they suddenly become a child at 25 weeks ?

Thats where the law draws the line ( in some other countries - and hopefully soon here too )

Ralphdejones

Mountainsandh wrote: »

By freeing the woman from the daily reminder of the rape, please read my earlier post.

When it is still time to administer medication to abort, the abortion is indeed like a heavy period with an embryo that does not look like a child, and is indeed a clump of cells.

Why should an innocent child be stigmatised as a "daily reminder of rape" ?
What crime have they committed exactly ?
A period is not human life, and all human beings are "just a clump of cells"

Ralphdejones

gctest50 wrote: »

Thats where the law draws the line ( in some other countries - and hopefully soon here too )

have to draw the line somewhere

like 100km/h or 50mg alcohol if it was driving

Killing a human life is not equivalent to drink driving read out.
24 weeks, 6 days, and 23 hours ok to kill them. 25 weeks no ?

Mountainsandh

Ralphdejones wrote: »

How do they suddenly become a child at 25 weeks ?

Who said suddenly ? Who said child ?

Wiki would do a lot better job than I, but as a crash course, there are 3 landmarks IMO : embryo becomes recognisable as human embryo (as opposed to pig), foetus develops higher brain activity (from around week 26), foetus is viable.
Note, it is still a foetus, until it is born.

gctest50

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Killing a human life is not equivalent to drink driving read out.

24 weeks, 6 days, and 23 hours ok to kill them. 25 weeks no ?

a limit is a limit - you seem to be having trouble with this concept

99km/hr 101km/hr

---

if the limit is 100km/hr

---

only one of those is ok



http://www.mariestopes.org.uk/overseas-clients/abortion/irish-clients

Surgical treatments are available for all women up to 24 weeks.

In early pregnancy it can take less than five minutes and can be done without anaesthetic.

Ultimately, it is solely the woman’s right to have an abortion or not.

.

Mountainsandh

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Why should an innocent child be stigmatised as a "daily reminder of rape" ?
What crime have they committed exactly ?
A period is not human life, and all human beings are "just a clump of cells"

It is not an innocent child, it is an embryo. Can you stigmatise an embryo ?
It is an embryo that is causing a gestational state for a woman who has been violently assaulted, the gestation is a daily reminder of rape, please. Read. My. Earlier. Post.
It has not committed a crime, and it is not innocent, it is a "disorganised" clump of cells since again you are attempting semantics to argue. It is not a person, and cannot be personified at that stage.

Mountainsandh

And please Ralph, don't let me have to explain the heavy period with an embryo attached bit, just google ok ?

Frito

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Can you stigmatise an embryo ?

I believe the answer is "yes" but you're more likely to stigmatise the woman carrying it. Particularly if she doesn't want to be carrying it.

Nodin

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Car accidents ?

In most car accidents involving a fatality no one is charged with manslaughter.

I am, but I've not been presented with anything rational yet. From pets to vets to car accidents.

Have you anything to do with the topic ?

Lets hope she doesn't make a balls of it this time

Please explain this remark you made earlier re Kitty Holland

Nodin

Interview with the poor woman at the centre of this
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/healt...1901258?page=1

eyescreamcone

The only outcome of all this is the setting up of back street abortion clinics for those poor women who can't travel.
Ireland of the welcomes...indeed!!!

Chattastrophe!

That poor woman.

I do agree that at that point of pregnancy, the only appropriate course of action was to terminate the pregnancy by C Section rather than abortion. But it should never, ever have been allowed get to that point.

At eight weeks pregnant, it's likely she'd have had very few physical side-effects from an abortion. She could have begun the emotional healing process after having become pregnant as a result of rape.

To me, what has been done to this woman by the HSE is a worse physical violation than the original rape. I can only imagine how helpless and terrified she must have felt. I don't think I could ever get over the trauma she's been through.

We now have a woman whose life has been ruined, and a very sick parentless baby who should never have existed. How anyone can argue that this is a better outcome than allowing the woman to have an abortion and make a new start in life is just beyond me.

In this day and age, that doctors can place more value on a clump of cells than on a living breathing woman sitting right there in front of them ... christ ...

How long until we hear of a woman being killed at the hands of some back-street abortionist? Because I'm sure it must happen in this country. There must be loads of women who simply can't afford the trip to the UK. You can sense the desperation this woman felt - I'm sure she'd have agreed to anything to regain control of her body.

Thousands of women travel to the UK for abortions every year. No one is disputing this fact. The fact is that the vast majority of women who want an abortion will get one anyways. It's the poorest and most desperate women who don't have that option and are forced to continue with their pregnancies. How is this right? Abortions are going to happen anyways - it's time that this was acknowledged and the appropriate facilities and support were made available in this country.

I'm interested in how many of the pro-lifers think that contraception is wrong? Sure every time someone takes the pill or uses a condom, aren't they denying a potential baby the chance of life? :rolleyes: In fact, every time a woman lets a month go by without having sex at the right time of the month, think of all those potential unborn "children". Where do you draw the line?

I had a scan days after getting a positive pregnancy test, and guess what the scan showed up? Absolutely nothing. (Although I went on to have a healthy baby.) But, using the most sensitive scanning equipment, the scans showed an empty uterus. Even though blood and urine tests were showing up increasing hcg levels. If I had had an early miscarriage at that stage, would this have been comparable to a woman losing a child? Hell no, and its an insult to those who have suffered real loss to even suggest that. What was inside me at that stage was too tiny to see on a scan, it wasn't life. It was something that had the potential to become life. Same as every sperm or egg has that potential. Terminating a pregnancy in the early stages is not the same as killing a baby. Such a ridiculous statement to even have to make!

I'm pro-choice anyways, but tragedies like this involving the most vulnerable people really bring it home to me how messed up our system is. It needs to change.

NuMarvel

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

To me, what has been done to this woman by the HSE is a worse physical violation than the original rape.

I think it was late in the pregnancy when she came into contact with the HSE. After the initial pregnancy test, most of her dealings were with the IFPA up to the point that she tried to take her own life. It was at some point after that she went to a GP who referred her to a hospital, where the process under the Act was initiated.

The HSE still have some questions to answer, e.g. why was she given contradictory information about being able to get an abortion, but I'd have more questions for the IFPA and why their counsellors didn't explain what options the woman had in Ireland.

On a general note, and leaving the matter of abortion to one side for a moment, does anyone know why wasn't she referred to a consultant obstetrician after the pregnancy was discovered? Is it standard for pregnant immigrants to be referred to a charity instead of maternity services?

Kiwi in IE

The abortion law here, as well as presenting a totally unnecessary danger to women of childbearing age, is massively internationally embarrassing.

I disclosed earlier in the thread that I am due to start IVF shortly. I have been asked on three occasions, by different members of my family back home, if I am as safe doing it here as I would be in New Zealand. And despite that I brushed their questions aside with 'don't be silly it's not that bad', they are not being silly, it is that bad, and I am not as safe bearing children here as in New Zealand, or any other western country.

If I were to become ill while pregnant, I would leave the country. If it came down to a choice between a much wanted pregnancy and my own life/ long term health, I would choose myself. I would not deprive my born child of a functioning parent, for the sake of a foetus. No matter how wanted the potential of another child at the end of the pregnancy is. I actually have a 'contingency plan' for getting out of Ireland if I were pregnant and things were to go wrong. Fortunately for me I would be able to access necessary treatment in England, and if I was too unwell to travel I have a husband, father, mother and sister who would involve New Zealand and British embassies (am UK citizen too) and basically do whatever it took to get me to the UK Mainland. After the case of Savita my family would not mess around. There are numerous women, both Irish and non Irish who, like the woman whose case we are discussing, would not have the resources to get the help they needed.

Little Kiwi woke me an hour ago and I have been reading through the thread since I last posted. As someone who resides here, I found it embarrassing that Marie Stopes consider it necessary to explain to Irish women on their website, how to deal with a misogynist, judgemental, religious GP, who behaves inappropriately when a client informs them of a need for an abortion, or that they have had a past abortion. Clearly they felt it necessary to highlight that this is not normal or acceptable behaviour from a medical professional, because women from Ireland are likely to think that it is.

It is well known internationally that Ireland has reproductive laws that are based on religious morals rather than what is in the best interests of it's residents. I feel embarrassed on behalf of the country despite that I am only a foreign national married to an Irish person.

Akrasia

Nodin wrote: »

Ridiculous, sickening, wrong, vile, backward, medieval.....

But when the Taoiseach of the state thinks you shouldn't pre-judge the outcome of a pregnancy where a Fatal Foetal Abnormality has been diagnosed, you can expect little better.

Maybe if the woman prays hard enough god will perform a miracle...

baldbear

The government really have their heada buried deep in the sand over this issue. I'd say Enda Kenny is glad its the holiday season.

And Jan O'Sullivan saying there should be a referendum during the next governments looks to be avoidnce tactics.

Akrasia

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Except it's not very clear.
Are you saying you would prefer the child had been aborted instead of being alive now, is that correct ?

Hold on a minute. Your 'logic' taken to it's natural conclusion supports the rape of this woman.

Q: Is it better for the child to be alive or not alive?
A: um, Alive i guess?

Therefore: If the rape had not taken place, the child would not be alive, therefore, it is better that the woman was raped than not raped.

Your argument doesn't take into account the suffering of the woman as she is forced to carry the baby against her will, therefore, the suffering of the woman as she is being raped can be discounted just as easily because for you, the outcome of 'a child alive is better than a child not alive' trumps any suffering the woman could experience.

At 8 weeks, the 'child' could not suffer, The 'child' did not have a working brain, it was a foetus that was exactly as self aware as the egg that existed in the young girl's ovaries before she was impregnated by a rapist. At 8 weeks, it was not a tradeoff between the suffering of a woman and the suffering of a child. The only person who was suffering was the woman/teenage girl, and as we know now, she later attempted suicide due to this suffering so it was at and beyond the limits of what she could bear to go through.

baldbear

The government really have their heada buried deep in the sand over this issue. I'd say Enda Kenny is glad its the holiday season.

And Jan O'Sullivan saying there should be a referendum during the next governments looks to be avoidnce tactics.

inocybe

Chattastrophe! wrote: »

How long until we hear of a woman being killed at the hands of some back-street abortionist? Because I'm sure it must happen in this country. There must be loads of women who simply can't afford the trip to the UK. You can sense the desperation this woman felt - I'm sure she'd have agreed to anything to regain control of her body.

Women are buying the abortion pill over the internet (if they can get it through the police state controlling the postal system), and taking it alone at home without the medical supervision needed. You're talking about 1000 euro to have an abortion in the uk, and the added weeks of pregnancy involved in arranging the trip. Any woman who needs an abortion wants to have it as early as possible - it's inhuman to deny access to the abortion pill via a doctor, so women have to risk bleeding to death at home.

Phoebas

Nodin wrote: »

Interview with the poor woman at the centre of this
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/healt...1901258?page=1

So at 16 weeks she told the IFPA she was suicidal but it doesnt look like they explained her rights to her sufficiently.

Its not clear exactly when she told the HSE but it looks like it was very close to 24 weeks and 1 day.

Can there be no funding from the pro choice campaign for hard cases like this; it looks like the barrier to her getting an earlier termination in the UK was more financial than legal?

kylith

Ralphdejones wrote: »

The child and the woman are both alive, why do you think an aborted child would have been a better outcome ?

The woman wouldn't have been traumatised even more than she already was by being forced to undergo a serious and invasive surgical procedure that will leave her scarred for life.

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Why should an innocent child be stigmatised as a "daily reminder of rape" ?
What crime have they committed exactly ?
A period is not human life, and all human beings are "just a clump of cells"

What crime has the woman committed that she should be traumatised even more than she already has been by being raped? Why do you want the woman to suffer?

And, unpalatable as it is, a pregnancy resulting from rape is a daily reminder of the rape, just as much as a broken nose is a daily reminder of having been punched in the face. Not only that, but it is one that people who don't know the circumstances will expect you to be happy and excited about.