woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

swampgas

Rubberchikken wrote: »

why are the irish so afraid of having legal abortion?

IMO a big part of it is stupid, pig-headed, stubborn pride: many people really don't like admitting that they are wrong.

Changing the law to allow abortion would be tacit acceptance of the fact that we have been treating women in a shocking and cruel way for many, many decades.

It means accepting, publicly, that Ireland is not a special place where we protect babies, but actually more of a medieval backwater where we force women to go through with pregnancy regardless of the trauma involved.

I suspect the older people are, the more likely this is. Younger people didn't fight to outlaw abortion the way their grandparents did, they are not as invested in maintaining the lie that banning abortion is somehow a good thing.

lazygal

Morag wrote: »

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.

This isn't quite correct. Ms X was in the UK seeking a termination when an application to restrict her right to abortion on the grounds of the eighth amendment was made by the attorney general.

Mountainsandh

Stheno wrote: »

Can't assign that blame to an organisation who have worked tirelessly to give women a choice for years, yes language breakdown, lack of realisation of circumstances, whatever, but pointing the finger at the IFPA is laughable.

But if they indeed did not notice that the girl hadn't a clue what they were on about, or they suspected she might still be confused and didn't fix the confusion, they do have to accept a part of the responsibility.
I understand they're probably a great organisation doing a lot of good (never had to deal with them myself), but if they messed up, they should have to fess up to it. Who knows, it could have been a less experienced worker meeting with the woman, to whom the possible confusion might not have occurred.
There does seem to have been a serious breakdown in communication, and that led to the chain of events we are being told. That's what we can infer from the very changeable timelines and reports we are given at this time anyway.

The one thing we can be pretty certain about, is that if abortion was legally available here, she would simply have been directed to a GP or maternity services by the AFPI, and everything would more than likely have happened in a pretty straightforward manner, and as we type this young lady, instead of giving interviews and trying to deal with a lengthy ordeal, would have quietly been able to start healing herself from the assault.

I don't think things should be done by halves, and if a referendum there is, it should be straightforward yes or no to abortion up to "n" weeks on condition of approval of GP.

In France I think the wording for a GP allowing an abortion to go ahead, is simply if the woman is in a situation of "distress". She is the one to decide if she is or not, but she does have to attend a GP for a first medical check and advice on her situation, then she has to meet a social representative for a counselling session, with a 7 days delay for reflection. After the 7 days she returns to the GP and gives a written confirmation that it is still what she wants to do. That's the IVG (voluntary interruption of pregnancy).
(the 7 days can be shortened if it is tight with the 12 weeks cut off date)
In 2001 an update to the IVG law has meant that the woman only could decide on whether she was in a situation of distress, and minors have been enabled to choose an unrelated adult to accompany them in their decision as opposed to a parent.


In case of rape but only if the woman is officially engaging legal pursuits against the attacker(s), and I guess possibly in other exceptional cases, a Therapeutic Interruption of Pregnancy (ITG) is possible after 12 weeks.

I think the French system is pretty well monitored. It gives the woman full responsibility for her choice, while supporting, counselling and advising her if she needs it.

edit : I realize my wording is not very clear re France : Gps used to have the last word for IVG to go ahead, but they don't anymore as in 2001 it was decided the woman knows best. She still has to go through the same process as far as I know.

mrsbyrne

Stheno wrote: »

No more and no less than before if you've been following the news and listening to the master of the rotunda.


What if the fire was in the freezer?



Pregnancy appears to increase the likelihood of one being taken under control by the state. A 16 year old pregnant girl was taken into "secure care yesterday" mandated by the courts without her mother being informed, as she is pregnant, has an intellectual disability, and has been acting out. The danger to her unborn child was a factor in the ruling

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/pregnant-schoolgirl-committed-to-secure-care-by-high-court-282505.html

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Can't assign that blame to an organisation who have worked tirelessly to give women a choice for years, yes language breakdown, lack of realisation of circumstances, whatever, but pointing the finger at the IFPA is laughable.

It appears that her pregnancy had been confirmed by a nurse who maybe referred her to IFPA. Should they not have referred her to a GP at that stage? It seems they didn't.

Stheno

Mountainsandh wrote: »

But if they indeed did not notice that the girl hadn't a clue what they were on about, or they suspected she might still be confused and didn't fix the confusion, they do have to accept a part of the responsibility.
I understand they're probably a great organisation doing a lot of good (never had to deal with them myself), but if they messed up, they should have to fess up to it. Who knows, it could have been a less experienced worker meeting with the woman, to whom the possible confusion might not have occurred.
There does seem to have been a serious breakdown in communication, and that led to the chain of events we are being told. That's what we can infer from the very changeable timelines and reports we are given at this time anyway.

The one thing we can be pretty certain about, is that if abortion was legally available here, she would simply have been directed to a GP or maternity services by the AFPI, and everything would more than likely have happened in a pretty straightforward manner, and as we type this young lady, instead of giving interviews and trying to deal with a lengthy ordeal, would have quietly been able to start healing herself from the assault.

I don't think things should be done by halves, and if a referendum there is, it should be straightforward yes or no to abortion up to "n" weeks on condition of approval of GP.

In France I think the wording for a GP allowing an abortion to go ahead, is simply if the woman is in a situation of "distress". She is the one to decide if she is or not, but she does have to attend a GP for a first medical check and advice on her situation, then she has to meet a social representative for a counselling session, with a 7 days delay for reflection. After the 7 days she returns to the GP and gives a written confirmation that it is still what she wants to do. That's the IVG (voluntary interruption of pregnancy).
(the 7 days can be shortened if it is tight with the 12 weeks cut off date)
In 2001 an update to the IVG law has meant that the woman only could decide on whether she was in a situation of distress, and minors have been enabled to choose an unrelated adult to accompany them in their decision as opposed to a parent.


In case of rape but only if the woman is officially engaging legal pursuits against the attacker(s), and I guess possibly in other exceptional cases, a Therapeutic Interruption of Pregnancy (ITG) is possible after 12 weeks.

I think the French system is pretty well monitored. It gives the woman full responsibility for her choice, while supporting, counselling and advising her if she needs it.

edit : I realize my wording is not very clear re France : Gps used to have the last word for IVG to go ahead, but they don't anymore as in 2001 it was decided the woman knows best. She still has to go through the same process as far as I know.

Language difficulties, her status as an asylum seeker, inability to travel, all add up to a travesty in this case.

mrsbyrne

So it seems now that allegations that a young victim of rape was held prisoner by rosary wielding medics and forcibly tied to s bed weeping and wailing and being force fed for 16 weeks as an incubator for a parasite , maybe, just maybe, slightly exaggerated.

Nodin

Morag wrote: »

Crisses Pregnancy counselling is Free.

Yeah, but going across isn't.

jam_mac_jam

mrsbyrne wrote: »

So it seems now that allegations that a young victim of rape was held prisoner by rosary wielding medics and forcibly tied to s bed weeping and wailing and being force fed for 16 weeks as an incubator for a parasite , maybe, just maybe, slightly exaggerated.

Yes, because that's exactly what anyone said.

Nodin

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Yes, because that's exactly what anyone said.

I was one of the first to highlight the dangers of Rosary wielding medics.

Stheno

mrsbyrne wrote: »

So it seems now that allegations that a young victim of rape was held prisoner by rosary wielding medics and forcibly tied to s bed weeping and wailing and being force fed for 16 weeks as an incubator for a parasite , maybe, just maybe, slightly exaggerated.

No but it seems that one rosary wielding maniac with no professional qualifications in psychiatry was able to disagree with two psychiatrists who thought the woman was suicidal, and instead of agreeing to abort, chose to further damage a woman, and bring an undeveloped and highly at risk life into the world.

A world that they have an 80 percent chance of never fully experiencing due to the circumstances of their birth.

mrsbyrne

Stheno wrote: »

No but it seems that one rosary wielding maniac with no professional qualifications in psychiatry was able to disagree with two psychiatrists who thought the woman was suicidal, and instead of agreeing to abort, chose to further damage a woman, and bring an undeveloped and highly at risk life into the world.

A world that they have an 80 percent chance of never fully experiencing due to the circumstances of their birth.

So even though most western countries including our nearest neighbours don't do abortions after 24 weeks, and even though the baby was healthy, and even though it appears that only a week passed between her meeting the panel and the CS performed, you still think the baby should have been killed. Why?
Edited to add: why do you presume the obstrician is RCC?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

mrsbyrne wrote: »

So it seems now that allegations that a young victim of rape was held prisoner by rosary wielding medics and forcibly tied to s bed weeping and wailing and being force fed for 16 weeks as an incubator for a parasite , maybe, just maybe, slightly exaggerated.

That is an exaggeration, but you're the only one who's said it. How do you feel about the allegations that the woman in question wasn't suicidal, or was lying about being raped? How do you feel about your own OP:

The psyches decided there was no real threat of suicide so no abortion.
She's offered a C Section. Not good enough. Baby must die or ill kill both of us.

Stheno

robertxxx wrote: »

The world is a tough place, if she didn't come here we the taxpayer wouldn't have this problem, a huge financial bill.

Why come here with your **** for us to deal with it.

She didn't know she was pregnant coming here.

mrsbyrne wrote: »

So even though most western countries including our nearest neighbours don't do abortions after 24 weeks, and even though the baby was healthy, and even though it appears that only a week passed between her meeting the panel and the CS performed, you still think the baby should have been killed. Why?
Edited to add: why do you presume the obstrician is RCC?

Have you missed the post saying it's possible up to 28 weeks in the uk?

and as to my presumption, while my gynae of choice at the moment is muslim, almost everyone else who is a gynae I have met is RCC as are the majority of this country.

mrsbyrne

Gustavo CoolS Quote wrote: »

That is an exaggeration, but you're the only one who's said it. How do you feel about the allegations that the woman in question wasn't suicidal, or was lying about being raped? How do you feel about your own OP:

First of al,my OP was based on the info available st the time. But you already knew that.
All of the metaphors in my post have been repeated many times in this thread. But you know that too.

mrsbyrne

Stheno wrote: »

She didn't know she was pregnant coming here.


Have you missed the post saying it's possible up to 28 weeks in the uk?

and as to my presumption, while my gynae of choice at the moment is muslim, almost everyone else who is a gynae I have met is RCC as are the majority of this country.

It may be possible but only very rarely. You are alleging that only practising RCC gynaes are anti abortion. Do you think that only practising RCCs in any profession (or none) are anti abortion?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

mrsbyrne wrote: »

First of al,my OP was based on the info available st the time. But you already knew that.
All of the metaphors in my post have been repeated many times in this thread. But you know that too.

As were the claims of her being denied an abortion at eight weeks, and the claims of her being detained against her will. Is it one rule for you and another for people who disagree with you?

One of the most repeated metaphors on this thread is along the lines of "murdering innocent unborn babies". And I'm being kind calling it a metaphor rather than a "manipulative misuse of language" or "the rantings of idiots".

Grayson

mrsbyrne wrote: »

So even though most western countries including our nearest neighbours don't do abortions after 24 weeks, and even though the baby was healthy, and even though it appears that only a week passed between her meeting the panel and the CS performed, you still think the baby should have been killed. Why?
Edited to add: why do you presume the obstrician is RCC?

I believe you'll find that pretty much no-one thinks a late abortion is a solution. There are however a very large number that think it should have been allowed at 8 weeks.

mrsbyrne

Grayson wrote: »

I believe you'll find that pretty much no-one thinks a late abortion is a solution. There are however a very large number that think it should have been allowed at 8 weeks.

And if this girl had been directed correctly at 8 weeks when she presented( in my opinion she was not) .she may have had an early abortion. I don't think it would have improved her mental condition, but I'm not a psych., but an abortion may have been recommended.

P_1

mrsbyrne wrote: »

So even though most western countries including our nearest neighbours don't do abortions after 24 weeks, and even though the baby was healthy, and even though it appears that only a week passed between her meeting the panel and the CS performed, you still think the baby should have been killed. Why?
Edited to add: why do you presume the obstrician is RCC?

I don't think you'll find many people here clamouring for an abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy, rather they're questioning a) why it wasn't facilitated before the foetus had developed sentience and b) the wisdom of delivering it by c section at such an early stage, severely limiting any kind of quality of life for the baby.

Ralphdejones

Grayson wrote: »

I believe you'll find that pretty much no-one thinks a late abortion is a solution. There are however a very large number that think it should have been allowed at 8 weeks.

Then why was she not reffered to a GP at 8 weeks ?

BTW, does anyone have any figures for how many abortions have been carried out to date under the new legislation ?

Grayson

mrsbyrne wrote: »

And if this girl had been directed correctly at 8 weeks when she presented( in my opinion she was not) .she may have had an early abortion. I don't think it would have improved her mental condition, but I'm not a psych., but an abortion may have been recommended.

Well, she wouldn't have had to attend multiple doctors and examinations (all of whom said she was suicidal and that she qualified to have an abortion). She wouldn't have gone on hunger strike and there wouldn't have been an order to force feed her. She also wouldn't have had to eventually experience a caesarian and she wouldn't be the centre of an international media circus.

She would have had a quiet abortion and be able to get on with her live.

mrsbyrne

P_1 wrote: »

I don't think you'll find many people here clamouring for an abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy, rather they're questioning a) why it wasn't facilitated before the foetus had developed sentience and b) the wisdom of delivering it by c section at such an early stage, severely limiting any kind of quality of life for the baby.

She went to the IFPA at 8 weeks.They appear to have given her iinfo about abortions in UK. And , err, thate it really. She moved, her next contact with a doctor seems to have been much too late.

Mountainsandh

mrsbyrne wrote: »

So even though most western countries including our nearest neighbours don't do abortions after 24 weeks, and even though the baby was healthy, and even though it appears that only a week passed between her meeting the panel and the CS performed, you still think the baby should have been killed. Why?
Edited to add: why do you presume the obstrician is RCC?

Actually the timeline is not so clear in my understanding. Depending on versions, I got the impression the pregnancy could possibly have been interrupted as early as 16/17 weeks, and even at say, 20 weeks, instead of 25, it would be a massive difference in terms of fetal development.

takamichinoku

That gap in time could be explained by her waiting for whatever visa applications she'd have to complete to travel to the UK (one article said the process took around 6-8 weeks?) and some form of communication breakdown regarding the costs involved resulting in her not knowing that wasn't going to happen until much later?

jank

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

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!

Never heard this and I imagine it was wild rumour and speculation rather then serious policy, but never let a good story go to waste I suppose. The first causality of war is the truth and this issue is a war.

Ralphdejones

mrsbyrne wrote: »

She went to the IFPA at 8 weeks.They appear to have given her iinfo about abortions in UK. And , err, thate it really. She moved, her next contact with a doctor seems to have been much too late.

She presented to the IFPA at 8 weeks
It's baffling that the first time she was seen by a GP was at 16 weeks, and that this was after her friend advised her to do so.
The HSE were informed at 20 weeks
The medical panel decided at 24 weeks
The pregnancy was termintated at 25 weeks

BTW, has anyone any figures on how many abortions have been carried out to date under the new legislation ?

jank

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.

Some are saying 8 weeks,some are saying 23/24 weeks. Both are of course using alleged and unconfirmed 'facts' to push their own agenda of this story.

Mountainsandh

takamichinoku wrote: »

That gap in time could be explained by her waiting for whatever visa applications she'd have to complete to travel to the UK (one article said the process took around 6-8 weeks?) and some form of communication breakdown regarding the costs involved resulting in her not knowing that wasn't going to happen until much later?

Yes it sounds likely doesn't it ? But you'd think someone working in family planning would have thought to mention that there would be a long delay for the visa (even putting the money/communication aside), and that it could be too late for an abortion then ?

Did she present at a GP at week 16 according to timeline ? If she presented to GP at week 16 already stating suicidal thoughts, then why the extra 4 weeks to panel ? 4 weeks is an eternity in this situation.

Maybe I'm understanding that timeline completely wrong

Mountainsandh

Ralphdejones wrote: »

She presented to the IFPA at 8 weeks
It's baffling that the first time she was seen by a GP was at 16 weeks, and that this was after her friend advised her to do so.
The HSE were informed at 20 weeks
The medical panel decided at 24 weeks
The pregnancy was termintated at 25 weeks

BTW, has anyone any figures on how many abortions have been carried out to date under the new legislation ?

Thanks for the clear summary.
So if this is to be trusted, then there are 4 weeks from GP to HSE, then another 4 weeks to a decision.

That's 8 precious weeks not to be wasted while a fetus is developing.

Ralphdejones

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Yes it sounds likely doesn't it ? But you'd think someone working in family planning would have thought to mention that there would be a long delay for the visa (even putting the money/communication aside), and that it could be too late for an abortion then ?

Did she present at a GP at week 16 according to timeline ? If she presented to GP at week 16 already stating suicidal thoughts, then why the extra 4 weeks to panel ? 4 weeks is an eternity in this situation.

Maybe I'm understanding that timeline completely wrong

Why was she not seen by a GP at 8 weeks instead of 16 ?
Those 8 weeks were the biggest delay by far, and the simplest most important step of all