woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

_Redzer_

jimgoose wrote: »

To be perfectly straight with you, I think you're a misogynistic lunatic.

Well he is deeply religious after all. Everything is based off of that for this lad.

RobertKK

Muise... wrote: »

So your answer has nothing at all to do with the prioritising of a living child over a blob? No, you found a loophole in the hypothesis and you're going to sneak your way out, completely unnoticed...

One is in a freezer safer than out in the heat of a fire, the other is out in the open in the heat of the fire along with the smoke.
There I spelled it out for you.

humanji

I'm locking this thread for a little bit to give people a chance to calm down and to actually read this warning. I've already given a warning to stick to the topic and that's been ignored. So infractions and thread bans will follow if you can't bring yourselves to discuss the case that the thread is about. It's is NOT about your opinion on abortion. We don't need another few hundred posts of circular bickering.





Edit: right let's try this again.

Da Shins Kelly

Been kinda trying to stay away from this to stop myself getting upset. Simply though, while this is completely terrible and shameful, it doesn't surprise me in the least. This is exactly the disaster that has been waiting to happen ever since this idiotic legislation was brought in. It was predicted around the time of the debates about the new legislation. Who knew it would happen so quickly?

The gay marriage referendum is set to happen next year. Something serious needs to be done about abortion laws alongside it. This country is going to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century at this rate.

Delirium

Ralphdejones wrote: »

90% of abortions in the UK are not for medical reasons

eeepaulo wrote: »

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/319460/Abortion_Statistics__England_and_Wales_2013.pdf

In 2013, the vast majority (97%; 180,680) of abortions were undertaken under ground C. A further 1% (1,726) under ground D, a similar proportion was carried out under ground E (1%; 2,732). Grounds A and B together accounted for about a tenth of one per cent of abortions (192). The proportion of ground C abortions has risen steadily with a corresponding reduction in ground D cases (See Table 3a.ii).


Ground C the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman (section 1(1)(a))

how is termination on the grounds of risk to physical or mental health not a medical reason?

pajor

Em.. am I missing something or does this turn the story on its head?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0819/638049-abortion-legislation/

RTÉ News has learned that the panel of three consultants in the case of a woman reportedly recently refused an abortion made a certification under Section 9 of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act that a termination of pregnancy should take place, by way of Caesarean section.

In this way the pregnancy was ended, and the doctors would take issue with reports or an interpretation that a termination of pregnancy was refused.

The doctors decided this course of action given that the woman asked for a termination of pregnancy under the new act and it was agreed that she was suicidal.

Molester Stallone II

pajor wrote: »

Em.. am I missing something or does this turn the story on its head?



No, it's proof that the doctors fcked the woman over on behalf of the HSE, keeps all parties happy except the most important, the woman

seaniemammy

Isn't it normal that if a person is considered a danger to themselves or others, they are placed under close medical supervision? Given that this girl appears to have been a danger to both herself and her unborn child, could she not have been closely supervised and treated by psychologist/psychiatrists during and after the pregnancy instead of risking the child's life/health?

mrsbyrne

kylith wrote: »

Wow. Just, wow.

Would you prefer to watch a child die in pain, or for it never to know pain?

Kylith as soon as we have unlimited abortion on demand, I take it you will then demand compulsory abortions for unborn babies diagnosed with life threatening abnormalities? You appear to have issues with parents who opt to continue with such a pregnancy?

mrsbyrne

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

pajor wrote: »

Em.. am I missing something or does this turn the story on its head?



No, it's proof that the doctors fcked the woman over on behalf of the HSE, keeps all parties happy except the most important, the woman

If the girl first came to the attention of the panel at 23 weeks and had her pregnancy terminated st 24 weeks then how wad she fu**ed over?

AlexisM

SW wrote: »

how is termination on the grounds of risk to physical or mental health not a medical reason?

I am very much pro-choice and would have no issue with abortion on demand up to about 12/14 weeks with 'good reason' abortions thereafter but it has to be acknowledged that the UK effectively has abortion on demand disguised as 'physical or mental health risks'. I don't have a problem with that but it is true - do you seriously think the thousands of Irish women who go each year fear for their physical or mental health - or do they just not want to be pregnant at that time? As I said, no issue from me with 'don't want to be pregnant right now' - but I know several people who have had abortions and it's never been out of fear for their physical or mental health.

Da Shins Kelly

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Been kinda trying to stay away from this to stop myself getting upset. Simply though, while this is completely terrible and shameful, it doesn't surprise me in the least. This is exactly the disaster that has been waiting to happen ever since this idiotic legislation was brought in. It was predicted around the time of the debates about the new legislation. Who knew it would happen so quickly?

The gay marriage referendum is set to happen next year. Something serious needs to be done about abortion laws alongside it. This country is going to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century at this rate.

It's appalling, and something absolutely needs to be done. Unfortunately we're relying on a bunch of spineless politicians who are terrified to touch this issue because of a very vocal and often hysterical minority.

The majority of people in the country want the eighth amendment removed, at the very least to allow for legislation for fatal foetal abnormalities and cases of rape. We have to make our voices heard too and demand a referendum. I would urge anyone who is horrified by this case to contact your local TDs and the relevant ministers and please put the pressure on. Jan O'Sullivan said it needs to be looked at by the next government - kicking the can down the road again. It's just not good enough.

mrsbyrne

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

If the girl first came to the attention of the panel at 23 weeks and had her pregnancy terminated st 24 weeks then how wad she fu**ed over?

The point is that she wanted an abortion at 8 weeks and was refused as per our current laws. Our current laws are medieval and show no compassion towards vulnerable people like this poor girl.

the_syco

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/teen-abortion-case-the-crucial-missing-12-weeks-30517732.html

The woman was pregnant when she arrived in the country. She received some form of medical treatment while she was in the direct provision centre for asylum seekers.

She is believed to have been referred by a nurse to an Irish Family Planning Association clinic, where she received counselling and information on her options and what visas she would require to leave the country and return. However, the clinics do not provide funding or make arrangements for women seeking an abortion.

The woman subsequently moved to a second location. She came into contact with a man with medical training from her own country who tried to assist her as she became distressed.

After she was pregnant for 20 weeks, he got in contact with an expert in the field who told them to contact a GP locally. The GP referred her to a hospital for assessment on the suicide grounds.

So... raped in the country that she fled from, and not in contact with the HSE until maybe around the 20 week mark. If true, this certainly does change the story from when it first came out rather dramatically.

Mainly as she wasn't refused at 8 weeks; she just wasn't given info on how to proceed with an abortion by the IFPA. Or she may have been refused. It seems there is little information still. Did some newspaper say she talked had to them?

mrsbyrne

Flying Fox wrote: »

mrsbyrne wrote: »

The point is that she wanted an abortion at 8 weeks and was refused as per our current laws. Our current laws are medieval and show no compassion towards vulnerable people like this poor girl.

But that doesn't appear to be what happened. She appears to have been directed to IFPA who proceeded as usual . To my reading there was then a complete breakdown in communication (I'm gueasing English is not her first language) and the poor girl was under the illusion that IFPA were organising an abortion for her. Of course they weren't. By the time IFPA referred her to a GP she was approaching 23 weeks. Too late.
IFPA need to take responsibility here.

Mandyxxx

Totally agree. Listening to Dr Peter Boylan and Ivana Bacik on Pat Kenny/Newstalk today and it was suggested that since no political party (apart from Labour) wants to hold a referendum for fear of losing votes, the Constitution Commission could be reconvened to decide that a referendum should be held on the 8th Amendment. If that happened, the next government could hold the referendum, along with the other proposed referenda (lower the voting age to 16, same-sex marriage etc), saying they are obliged to and not take any stand on the substantive issues if they don't want it.

Also, it would mean the next general election can be fought on the usual issues, and not on abortion, candidates would not be intimidated etc.

Personally I think we should not "jump the gun" - if a referendum failed it could take another 20 years before another one is held.

I think, well I certainly hope, that within 5 years we will have some compassionate abortion legislation in place.

We should take heart from the fact that in 1992, when Ireland was a lot more conservative than it is today, the Irish people voted to allow the right to travel and to information. While they probably did not want a liberal abortion law here they did not like the idea of women being trapped in the country and forced to continue a pregnancy against their will.

Also, in 1983, there was only a 50% turnout despite the best efforts of the Church and other promoters of the amendment. This indicates that many many people were disquieted about it.

Mandyxxx

Flying Fox wrote: »

It's appalling, and something absolutely needs to be done. Unfortunately we're relying on a bunch of spineless politicians who are terrified to touch this issue because of a very vocal and often hysterical minority.

The majority of people in the country want the eighth amendment removed, at the very least to allow for legislation for fatal foetal abnormalities and cases of rape. We have to make our voices heard too and demand a referendum. I would urge anyone who is horrified by this case to contact your local TDs and the relevant ministers and please put the pressure on. Jan O'Sullivan said it needs to be looked at by the next government - kicking the can down the road again. It's just not good enough.

Sorry, my post above is in response to this quote

P_1

Mandyxxx wrote: »

Totally agree. Listening to Dr Peter Boylan and Ivana Bacik on Pat Kenny/Newstalk today and it was suggested that since no political party (apart from Labour) wants to hold a referendum for fear of losing votes, the Constitution Commission could be reconvened to decide that a referendum should be held on the 8th Amendment. If that happened, the next government could hold the referendum, along with the other proposed referenda (lower the voting age to 16, same-sex marriage etc), saying they are obliged to and not take any stand on the substantive issues if they don't want it.

Also, it would mean the next general election can be fought on the usual issues, and not on abortion, candidates would not be intimidated etc.

Personally I think we should not "jump the gun" - if a referendum failed it could take another 20 years before another one is held.

I think, well I certainly hope, that within 5 years we will have some compassionate abortion legislation in place.

We should take heart from the fact that in 1992, when Ireland was a lot more conservative than it is today, the Irish people voted to allow the right to travel and to information. While they probably did not want a liberal abortion law here they did not like the idea of women being trapped in the country and forced to continue a pregnancy against their will.

Also, in 1983, there was only a 50% turnout despite the best efforts of the Church and other promoters of the amendment. This indicates that many many people were disquieted about it.

Actually now that I think of it, why did we even need to have that referendum in the first place? Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Ireland's EU membership have guaranteed the right to travel of all citizens.

Mandyxxx

P_1 wrote: »

Actually now that I think of it, why did we even need to have that referendum in the first place? Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Ireland's EU membership have guaranteed the right to travel of all citizens.

Because, as far as I remember, there was a protocol in the Maastrict Treaty saying that Europe would not interfere in the operation in Ireland of the 8th Amendment.

P_1

Mandyxxx wrote: »

Because, as far as I remember, there was a protocol in the Maastrict Treaty saying that Europe would not interfere in the operation in Ireland of the 8th Amendment.

Ah I see. Bloody hell our politicians really weren't acting in the interests of the people at all back in the day were they?

Calina

P_1 wrote: »

Ah I see. Bloody hell our politicians really weren't acting in the interests of the people at all back in the day were they?

Oh but they were acting in the interests of the unborn...

Mandyxxx

Nope. Anti-abortion campaigners have been saying for years that the Amendment is the will of the people. It was, once (or some of them anyway, who had no idea of the implications for women with life-threatening issues). Now, of course, nobody under the age of 49 had a vote in that referendum.

It is interesting that Fianna Fail have made no comment so far. Twenty years ago nearly every politician would have been falling over themselves saying how anti-abortion they are. Nowadays, some politicians are openly pro-choice and most fudge the issue because they know they will alienate many people if they express anti-abortion views.

Agus

the_syco wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/teen-abortion-case-the-crucial-missing-12-weeks-30517732.html


So... raped in the country that she fled from, and not in contact with the HSE until maybe around the 20 week mark. If true, this certainly does change the story from when it first came out rather dramatically.

Mainly as she wasn't refused at 8 weeks; she just wasn't given info on how to proceed with an abortion by the IFPA. Or she may have been refused. It seems there is little information still. Did some newspaper say she talked had to them?

The Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/they-said-they-could-not-do-an-abortion-i-said-you-can-leave-me-now-to-die-i-don-t-want-to-live-in-this-world-anymore-1.1901258


Going by the article the actual sequence of her contact with healthcare seems to be as follows
1. She was raped in her own country and didn’t realise she was pregnant

2. Earlier this year she arrived in Ireland and at a medical assessment a nurse did a pregnancy test and told her she was pregnant.

3. She was referred to the Irish Family Planning Association where her pregnancy was confirmed.

4. She was 8 weeks pregnant at this stage and she says she was under the impression that the IFPA were going to organise an abortion for her in England

5. At 16 weeks the IFPA told her that this was not the case and that the estimated cost of travelling to England, having the abortion and possible overnight accommodation could be over €1,500.. She did not have this money.

6. At 24 weeks she saw a GP and was referred to hospital where the panel came into play and the sequence of events unfolded which ended up with a Caesarean section.

Nodin

Agus wrote: »

The Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/they-said-they-could-not-do-an-abortion-i-said-you-can-leave-me-now-to-die-i-don-t-want-to-live-in-this-world-anymore-1.1901258


Going by the article the actual sequence of her contact with healthcare seems to be as follows
1. She was raped in her own country and didn’t realise she was pregnant

2. Earlier this year she arrived in Ireland and at a medical assessment a nurse did a pregnancy test and told her she was pregnant.

3. She was referred to the Irish Family Planning Association where her pregnancy was confirmed.

4. She was 8 weeks pregnant at this stage and she says she was under the impression that the IFPA were going to organise an abortion for her in England

5. At 16 weeks the IFPA told her that this was not the case and that the estimated cost of travelling to England, having the abortion and possible overnight accommodation could be over €1,500.. She did not have this money.

6. At 24 weeks she saw a GP and was referred to hospital where the panel came into play and the sequence of events unfolded which ended up with a Caesarean section.

Ye have to wonder who directed her to the IFPA at all, considering shes no means at all.

almostover

HurtLocker wrote: »

Yes because the above happens and we are the last corner of sanity in the western world.

Sure women are seeking shelter here...
http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2014/08/18/thousands-of-women-flocking-to-ireland-to-not-have-abortions/

A great piece of satire to which I found myself smirking until I realised that this depiction is not very far from the truth in this country.......

Kiwi in IE

RobertKK wrote: »

Prochoice are always using specific cases to try and benefit from the tragedy.

Actually these 'specific cases' only keep occurring because Ireland has an abortion law based on perceived 'morality', rather than the best interests of it's citizens and residents.

Morag

P_1 wrote: »

Actually now that I think of it, why did we even need to have that referendum in the first place? Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't Ireland's EU membership have guaranteed the right to travel of all citizens.

When the girl in the X case was denied the right to travel to the UK for an abortion by the High court, it then became an issue. There was talk about pregnancy tests at airports before and after a woman left the country.

Morag

Nodin wrote: »

Ye have to wonder who directed her to the IFPA at all, considering shes no means at all.

Crisses Pregnancy counselling is Free.

NuMarvel

seaniemammy wrote: »

Isn't it normal that if a person is considered a danger to themselves or others, they are placed under close medical supervision? Given that this girl appears to have been a danger to both herself and her unborn child, could she not have been closely supervised and treated by psychologist/psychiatrists during and after the pregnancy instead of risking the child's life/health?

You're talking about watching her 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the remainder of her pregnancy, which would be another 3/4 months. And during all that time, the source of her suicidal feelings would literally be right there with her, becoming more and more obvious as the days go by.

I think the only way you could guarantee that this girl wouldn't take her own life in all that time is to restrain her either physically or with medication. Add the stress of those interventions to the traumas the girl has already experienced (rape, a suicide attempt, being told she has to keep a pregnancy she does not want), and you've a recipe for long term psychological damage.

And put all of that in the context of an already stretched and under-resourced mental health service.

Given the circumstances, I think the doctors made the best decision they could when weighing up the girl's long term welfare and the unborn's constitutional right to life. But it should never have gotten this far in the first place.

Kiwi in IE

Morag wrote: »

There was talk about pregnancy tests at airports before and after a woman left the country.

Seriously? Were people actually advocating for this to happen? As horrific as I think the abortion situation is here already, I never would have expected anything of that level. I might be unsuprised if I were told such a thing about Iran!