woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Mountainsandh

A lot of the abortions nowadays are very similar to the morning after pill, they're not the surgical procedure that you'd often think about.

In France in 2007 they found that 49% of abortions were medicated, no surgical intervention required, as they happen before 7 weeks pregnancy, at home (9 weeks at a push, in hospital).

So I think there's this vision of lots of surgical interventions when really, an official abortion can just as well be a few pills you take at home very very early on in pregnancy. That's a good thing in my opinion, the earlier the better of course.

I think most women will avoid having to abort later than 12 weeks at all costs.

Kamik

I believe the real problem in this case was the legalities of an immigrant minor traveling overseas for the abortion. Perhaps a lass whose family is seeking asylum here.
If that is so, they are prevented from foreign travel anyway.

takamichinoku

Mountainsandh wrote: »

In France in 2007 they found that 49% of abortions were medicated, no surgical intervention required, as they happen before 7 weeks pregnancy, at home (9 weeks at a push, in hospital).

Just checking I've got my knowledge of the female anatomy right here, so basically 49% of them happen or are (very likely to have been) scheduled to happen before the second missed period? That's a higher figure than I expected, even, it's an incredibly short span of time to be making big decisions.

AlexisM

I consider myself pro-choice. I’m okay with abortion on demand up to 12/14 weeks; then maybe 18/20 weeks for foetal abnormality/rape/incest. For a foetal abnormality incompatible with life, I don’t think a time limit is necessary so long as everything is done as humanely as necessary – it should be up to the parents at what stage they are most comfortable with the pregnancy coming to an end.

I’ve really struggled though with this particular case. I’m obviously of the view that this should have been dealt with as early as possible – preferably below 12 weeks. But it DID get to a late stage so what’s right in that circumstance? My own view is that 25 weeks is too late for an abortion but it’s also too early for a delivery. I can’t believe a doctor delivered the baby that early – what happened to ‘first do no harm’? It’s horrendous that an otherwise healthy baby was removed too early and will undoubtedly be damaged permanently. I can’t think of any other circumstances (other than as a result of a crime) where a person can look at their disability and think ‘someone did this to me on purpose – it wasn’t an accident or even negligence, I could have been born with no disability but for a conscious decision made by a fallible human being’ – it just doesn’t bear thinking about.

But what do you do with a suicidal pregnant woman at 25 weeks? Section her? That’s pretty horrendous too. Anyone know the approach taken other countries with regard to suicidal late-term pregnant women?

The Purveyor of Truth

kylith wrote: »

Yes, but saying you're "Pro-Choice", sounds good. Saying you're "Pro Fetal Abortion" sounds bad. It's about PR.

FYP.

takamichinoku wrote: »

The numbers having a late-term abortion at the later stages when there are no health risks involved are surely astronomically low? It's not an easy process on the woman either and the long term effects of it both physically and mentally would likely be hugely increased once it gets that far on.

It's usually around 10% of abortions occur after the 12th week of gestation (2% of which are after the 20th week).

irishpancake

Ralphdejones wrote: »

There are so many endlessly repeated strawmen, misrepresentation and baseless slurs being thrown about here, the discussion is pointless and impossible.
I guess that's the aim. There are two innocent lives involved in this case not one, one of whom is completely defenseless, has and has no one to speak up for them. Up to 6000 Irish children a year are needlessly aborted in Britian every year, there are endless other options and support systems now available for these children in our society. The medieval practice of killing unborn children in the womb, and the attempted de-humanisation of them at every opportuinty in order to pepeuate and sustain the practice, is not required in a modern civilised society. Someday, maybe generations from now, society will evolve to a point where they don't kill their unborn children.

Up to 6000 Irish children a year are needlessly aborted in Britian every year

There are for sure that number of abortions, at least, by Irish women, in the UK, and elsewhere, every year.

Calling all aborted fetuses "children" is incorrect, emotive, sophistic, disingenuous, and distorts language.

These are all fetuses.

Killing children, or infanticide, is illegal everywhere in the World, not just in the UK and Ireland.

It is the language of the so-called "Pro-life" movement, which itself is a gross distortion, as it assumes that everyone who disagrees with these fundamentalists, who have wrought so much damage on modern Ireland, since 1983, is somehow Anti-life.

If you and your colleagues feel there is mass-murder afoot, the killing, or infanticide, of over 6000 children per year....

Why, as alleged humanitarians, do you allow this to go on, without the most strenuous and vocal of demonstrations, at our Air, Sea, and other ports of embarkation??

Why do you not insist on bringing injunctions against those women departing Ireland to avail of this murderous trade??

Why not insist upon screening all departing women, to check whether they are pregnant or not, and if they are, why not disallow their travel until the pregnancy reaches term, when babies will then be delivered, safely?

Why not propose detention facilities, where any such woman who will not willingly stay in the "Motherland", can be warehoused in a secure environment, until her baby is delivered, safely into the care of a loving and caring State?

You know why you don't have the courage of your so-called convictions.

So do I know, and most observers of your vile and cynical movement also know.

Detaining them here, at home, in Mother Ireland, those unwilling pregnant women, with their unwanted or unsafe pregnancies, would create, in Ireland, the very circumstances which lead to the introduction of abortion services in most other civilised countries, [if indeed Ireland deserves to be included in that group].

It would also increase the burden on this State, to care for all these unwanted babies, in our inimitable fashion.

It would increase the trade in back-street abortions, and consequent deaths of women forced into the arms of illegal, unqualified and money centred abortionists.

So we know why you will do phuck all, and continue to allow the UK to solve the problem of all those unwanted children and dead women, who would be killed by unsafe and illegal abortions, which would happen.

Where there is a demand, there will be a supply.

There will always be a demand for abortion services.

Reducing, restricting or completing withdrawing the supply of that service in the UK, will mean a growth of the service elsewhere, here, in Ireland.

So less of the hypocritical bullshyte from so-called pro-lifers about the UK Irish Abortion rate.

You love it, welcome it and do nothing whatsoever about it, as long as it happens anywhere but in Holy Mother Ireland.

You make my sick to my stomach.

Piliger

Mountainsandh wrote: »

In France in 2007 they found that 49% of abortions were medicated, no surgical intervention required, as they happen before 7 weeks pregnancy, at home (9 weeks at a push, in hospital).

Reference?

kylith

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

FYP.

Your username really is a misnomer considering how you are simply lying about me.

I am not Pro-Abortion. I think it would be ideal if no abortions ever happened anywhere in the world because people had access to education and contraception. I am, however, Pro-CHOICE. I support a woman having the CHOICE to safely and legally terminate a pregnancy in her home country should she think it's in her best interest to do so. The only people attempting to enforce their moral views on women and deny them of any choice are the so-called Pro-life side.

Godge

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

FYP.



.

Pro-life equals Anti-Choice

Pro-Choice does not necessarily equal Pro-Abortion
Pro-Choice does not necessarily equal Anti-Life

The only correct linguistic way of describing both sides of debate is around the word "choice", either you are pro- or anti- choice.

Ralphdejones

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Not if you are the one alive, that many others would prefer were dead.

Surely "prefer" proved my point of "subjective". They are some what linked. Is preference not subjective?

hinault wrote: »

Is it subjective? How so?

Phoebas wrote: »

It is?

Yes it is.

As for how so - It is clear there are many different opinions on not only what "alive" is but what level of "alive" even matters.

It is clear that simply being "alive" is not the main criteria of most anti choice people. Otherwise they would not eat meat for example. Clearly this shows there are levels and differences in "alive" and simply being "alive" is not the criteria they -actually- operate under. There are obviously caveats - foot notes - or clarifications appended onto the end of the word that they act like go unspoken.

What "alive" means to any one of us is not only variable - but highly contextual - and all too often the context is our agenda in the abortion conversation.

conorh91

kylith wrote: »

I think it would be ideal if no abortions ever happened anywhere in the world

Tell me. Why do you have an anti-abortion preference in the first place?

volchitsa

takamichinoku wrote: »

Just checking I've got my knowledge of the female anatomy right here, so basically 49% of them happen or are (very likely to have been) scheduled to happen before the second missed period? That's a higher figure than I expected, even, it's an incredibly short span of time to be making big decisions.

You're assuming that a woman who finds herself pregnant has never thought about the possibility until it happens. That seems unlikely.

When you find a house you want to buy, would it help if the bank refused to give you a mortgage until you spent more than a month thinking about whether you wanted to take such a big decision? I don't mean they gave you time to think, I mean they would force you to take it, when you have already made your mind up.

Or should they just take it that you had thought things through beforehand and knew what you wanted to do?

volchitsa

AlexisM wrote: »

But what do you do with a suicidal pregnant woman at 25 weeks? Section her? That’s pretty horrendous too. Anyone know the approach taken other countries with regard to suicidal late-term pregnant women?

Isn't it the case that outside of someone with mental health problems (so who could be sectioned if necessary) the availability of abortion in other countries means this just doesn't happen in the first place? You'd need to look at countries where abortion is outlawed to see what they do. Which countries are they, and do we want to resemble them?

SilverScreen

Pro-lifers seem to be oblivious to the reality that the world does not need more children, for environmental, social and economic reasons. The world is already way way waaaay overpopulated as it is.

If I was supreme ruler of the world I would put a freeze on child birth for a period and encourage adoption instead.

Molester Stallone II

SilverScreen wrote: »

Pro-lifers seem to be oblivious to the reality that the world does not need more children, for environmental, social and economic reasons. The world is already way way waaaay overpopulated as it is.

If I was supreme ruler of the world I would put a freeze on child birth for a period and encourage adoption instead.

Kinda glad you're not in that case

kylith

conorh91 wrote: »

Tell me. Why do you have an anti-abortion preference in the first place?

Because finding out you're unexpectedly pregnant is very stressful to women and I would prefer for that not to happen. It's also an expensive procedure which is invasive at worst and seriously messes with her hormones at best.

In situations where there is a FFA I think that abortion is a sad necessity. I would prefer that it weren't necessary in the same way that I wish it weren't necessary for some people to have lungs or kidneys removed, but I accept that in some cases it is.

Grayson

kylith wrote: »

Your username really is a misnomer considering how you are simply lying about me.

I am not Pro-Abortion. I think it would be ideal if no abortions ever happened anywhere in the world because people had access to education and contraception. I am, however, Pro-CHOICE. I support a woman having the CHOICE to safely and legally terminate a pregnancy in her home country should she think it's in her best interest to do so. The only people attempting to enforce their moral views on women and deny them of any choice are the so-called Pro-life side.

I don't think anyone is pro abortion. It's like being pro colonoscopy.

Neyite

SilverScreen wrote: »

Pro-lifers seem to be oblivious to the reality that the world does not need more children, for environmental, social and economic reasons. The world is already way way waaaay overpopulated as it is.

If I was supreme ruler of the world I would put a freeze on child birth for a period and encourage adoption instead.

As a result of the Hague Convention, adoption is damn near impossible for Irish couples now. While there are millions of little ones worldwide in orphanages who need a safe and loving home, they are not available for foreign adopters anymore.

And since 2009, there has been one Irish child offered up for non-familial adoption. So, essentially, there are no children TO adopt.

So before you issue the edict restricting a fundamental biological right, when you do become Supreme Ruler, you'll need to do something about the Hague Convention first.

volchitsa

Neyite wrote: »

As a result of the Hague Convention, adoption is damn near impossible for Irish couples now. While there are millions of little ones worldwide in orphanages who need a safe and loving home, they are not available for foreign adopters anymore.

And since 2009, there has been one Irish child offered up for non-familial adoption. So, essentially, there are no children TO adopt.

So before you issue the edict restricting a fundamental biological right, when you do become Supreme Ruler, you'll need to do something about the Hague Convention first.

The main reason it has become impossible to adopt from abroad is that there were so many abuses. Children were in some cases kidnapped from loving families to sell to rich westerners, or were taken through various sorts of trickery from poor vulnerable women who didn't understand what was being done or that they had a choice in the matter.

I don't see how it's relevant anyway, the lack of children to adopt isn't a good argument in favour of forced childbirth.

mrsbyrne

SilverScreen wrote: »

Pro-lifers seem to be oblivious to the reality that the world does not need more children, for environmental, social and economic reasons. The world is already way way waaaay overpopulated as it is.

If I was supreme ruler of the world I would put a freeze on child birth for a period and encourage adoption instead.

Thank God your just supreme ruler of yourself.

mrsbyrne

volchitsa wrote: »

The main reason it has become impossible to adopt from abroad is that there were so many abuses. Children were in some cases kidnapped from loving families to sell to rich westerners, or were taken through various sorts of trickery from poor vulnerable women who didn't understand what was being done or that they had a choice in the matter.

I don't see how it's relevant anyway, the lack of children to adopt isn't a good argument in favour of forced childbirth.

I'd like to hear your argument for forced abortions? If as Supreme Ruler you've forbidden any more babies then how else to you propose to deal with the accidental pregnancies that occur?

volchitsa

mrsbyrne wrote: »

I'd like to hear your argument for forced abortions? If as Supreme Ruler you've forbidden any more babies then how else to you propose to deal with the accidental pregnancies that occur?

I think you are quoting the wrong post? I didn't say anything even vaguely in support of forced abortions!

mrsbyrne

volchitsa wrote: »

I think you are quoting the wrong post? I didn't say anything even vaguely in support of forced abortions!

Sorry yes! It was silverscreen imposing forced abortions.

Little CuChulainn

Grayson wrote: »

I don't think anyone is pro abortion. It's like being pro colonoscopy.

Only if you completely dismiss the whole debate on the existence of a life.

volchitsa

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Only if you completely dismiss the whole debate on the existence of a life.

That's a separate question, about whether abortion is killing a living baby or not. Using "pro-" anything should mean the person wants that thing, whatever it is, to happen. If I'm pro integrated education, say, that means I support it and want it to become widespread because I think it is a good thing, it's not just that I want my kids to go there. I would probably like all the children in the country to be able to go to one, and would quite likely get involved in opening more around the country.

Who actually wants as many abortions as possible to happen? No-one. Or no-one sane anyway. So no-one is pro-abortion, only pro-the right of a woman not to be pregnant if that is what she decides. With more or less freedom in that choice, depending on exactly how pro-choice the person is.

Godge

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Sorry yes! It was silverscreen imposing forced abortions.

An extreme position I think nobody sane or reasonable would accept. Just as nobody sane or reasonable would force a woman to carry a child to term after they were raped and a reasonable alternative (early-term termination) was available.

The Purveyor of Truth

kylith wrote: »

Your username really is a misnomer considering how you are simply lying about me.

Nope. I did no such thing. I merely pointed out the obvious.

I am not Pro-Abortion. I think it would be ideal if no abortions ever happened anywhere in the world because people had access to education and contraception. I am, however, Pro-CHOICE. I support a woman having the CHOICE to safely and legally terminate a pregnancy in her home country should she think it's in her best interest to do so. The only people attempting to enforce their moral views on women and deny them of any choice are the so-called Pro-life side.

As do I, to a certain degree, as stated previously.

Look, you can dress it up anyway you wish but it makes no odds. All you want to do is remove the word abortion from the label you wish to identify as. With regards to the abortion debate, you are indeed Pro Abortion, whether you like it or not. Of course you would wish there were no abortions, ever, we all would, but in the context of the debate on abortion, you are Pro Abortion, quit trying to run away from that fact.

It would be like if Dental extractions were illegal in this country and I wished they were not and called my self Pro Choice and then semantically objected when people aptly referred to me as being Pro Extractions.

'Excuse me but I am not Pro Extractions' as I would prefer if extractions never had to happen'.

It's a cop out. When you are called Pro Abortion, it does not mean that you are a fan of them, and that the more that happen, the happier you would be, it just means that you are supportive of the availability of them. The desire to avoid using the word in what you, and others, choose to label yourselves is just PR, which was the charge you ironically leveled at the 'Pro Life' side and I would agree with you on that, but the point of my post was that both sides indulge in it, not just one.

Its Only Ray Parlour

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Thank God your just supreme ruler of yourself.

Ignoring the problem isn't going to make it go away. We are running out of natural resources. Why do you think America wants to invade nearly every country in the Middle East?

Obama was an anti-war liberal when he first campaigned for Presidency, now he's an oil-hungry warmonger. America knows they need to control the oil fields to remain a superpower.

If we reduce the planet's population, we'll reduce our dependency on natural resources. It will also reduce pollution and its effects on climate change.

You need to put your ignorant morals aside and look at the bigger picture.

Grayson

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Only if you completely dismiss the whole debate on the existence of a life.

Or of you completely misrepresent what I said. No-one is pro abortion. no-one wants women to have an abortion. Just like no-one wants people to have a colonoscopy

There are pro choice advocates. they wish people to have the option there if they need it. But no-one at all is pro abortion.

irishpancake

Godge wrote: »

An extreme position I think nobody sane or reasonable would accept. Just as nobody sane or reasonable would force a woman to carry a child to term after they were raped and a reasonable alternative (early-term termination) was available.

Particularly raped and suicidal, her life endangered by continuing the pregnancy, the very circumstances which gave rise to "X"......

the difference being, Ms. X had a loving supportive family, who had her in the UK for an abortion, when the Irish AG sought and got an injunction to force her home, where she was to be detained for the duration of her pregnancy.

She, through her loving family, appealed to the Supreme Court, where history was made, and restricted abortion rights, in Ireland, for women and girls in Ms X's situation were granted, under the very section of the Constitution which had been inserted at the insistance the religious fundamentalists, and by a cowardly Government, who allowed the people to vote on a a flawed statement, which had, and still has, no place in our Basic Law.

This latest poor, migrant, raped and suicidal girl had no one to insist upon her rights under the Irish Constitution and the law implementing and regulating the " X" ruling.

That is shameful, particularly for those who are charged with upholding her rights and ensuring her health, whoever they were, within the immigration reception centre and the HSE.

She was treated like a piece of garbage and forced to give birth to her rapists child, which child has a most uncertain future, regarding health, status or even citizenship, and ongoing care in the hands of the Irish State.