The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

horseburger

Billy86 wrote: »

So would you try to feed a 10 week old removed foetus, and if not - why not?

Isn't it a good thing to try and ensure a foetus continues life cycle and development, if possible?

ohnonotgmail

horseburger wrote: »

Isn't it a good thing to try and ensure a foetus continues life cycle and development, if possible?

and if it isnt possible?

robarmstrong

horseburger wrote: »

Here is an interesting aspect of the question of the issue of whether what is growing during a pregnancy is human or not.

The interviewer asks people when they consider human life status should be granted:

The interviewer didn't ask people, he asked one person, one person does not equal "people" unless there are more videos stemming from this particular clip?

Also, those questions? Ridiculous. Taking a fetus out of utero partially to perform an operation and place said fetus back in is nowhere close in comparison to being considered being "born", video clearly shows the intelligence (or lack of in this instance) of the interviewer.

Billy86

horseburger wrote: »

Isn't it a good thing to try and ensure a foetus continues life cycle and development, if possible?

I'll need to press for a direct answer, are you saying you would try to feed a 10 week old removed foetus?

robarmstrong

Billy86 wrote: »

I'll need to press for a direct answer, are you saying you would try to feed a 10 week old removed foetus?

I can't imagine a 10 week old removed fetus would survive on a diet of lies, inaccuracies and intentional misinterpretations.

pleas advice

Pedro K wrote: »

Edit: if you're going to mention to mental health angle, it's been done. We already have provisions for the potential suicide of pregnant women in PLDPA 2013 and in '14, '15, and '16, all put together, there were only 7 terminations carried out under this provision. Irish women didn't flock to their doctors claiming mental health issues after '13. There's nothing to suggest they will if the 8th is repealed.

.

pleas advice wrote: »

just as there is a difference between 'threat to life' and 'serious harm to the health' of the woman, there is a difference between threat of suicide and serious harm to the mental health of the woman

Pedro K

pleas advice wrote: »

.

I replied to that earlier in the thread. The implication is the same. That women will flock to their doctors claiming mental health issues to procure abortions.

We heard that before when the PLDPA2013 was being debated. It didn't happen. We are hearing it again. Like many slippery slope fallacies before it.

You are being disingenuous at best to suggest that it will happen.

EDIT: here's my original reply.

Pedro K wrote: »

The implication is the same. That women will use the clause to claim mental health issues to procure a termination. That hasn't happened since 2013, there's nothing to suggest it will happen should we repeal the 8th, and, personally, I think women deserve more respect than that.

bertieinexile

Hi JDD
Thanks so much for that.
Your post was heartfelt, reasonable and showed a real willingness to engage with the other side of the argument. I'm tempted to ask what in the name of God you're doing on this thread.

JDD wrote: »

Firstly, can I thank you for coming back so comprehensively on my post. I’m presuming you are not an obstetrician and an obstetrician had a lot of input into the that post, so let me thank him/her also for taking time out of their day.

No obstetricians involved, except the ones who published on this subject. But thanks, these days I'll take compliments where I can find them. I'm thinking of changing my avatar.
http://flopcast.net/247/bob.jpg

I know the statistics. Ireland is a relatively safe place to give birth, I agree. I don’t believe pregnant women are monitored any more closely here than if I were to be pregnant in the UK or Denmark or Canada, and in fact the statistics bear that out. We have relatively the same amount of maternal deaths as other comparable countries who have liberal abortion regimes – so we’re not a “world leader” as you say. I don’t believe the strict regime here makes a woman’s pregnancy any safer.

Whether you want to apply the "world leader" tag or not, our maternity care takes place against the backdrop of the 8th amendment and is consistently ranked around 6th best in the world.
Whether you accept that WHO ranking, which puts us ahead of the uk, or the Maternal Death Enquiry which says we are statistically as safe as the uk, both make a nonsense of the claim that the 8th amendment endangers lives. Which a huge amount of the pro choice argument seems to be based on.

Do I think it makes it any less safe? People who would have concerns such as mine might choose to avail of the online termination pill, or go to the UK, so that would skew the statistics somewhat. Maternal deaths which would be deemed a direct result of the 8th for the remainder of women who choose to go full term I’d imagine are very rare (that would be of no comfort to their families, I’m sure), and therefore probably don’t have a statistically significant affect.

I understand you to be focussing on whether the 8th amendment makes a woman’s pregnancy any less safe when she is at risk of placenta accretia. My understanding is that no one chooses to go to term with diagnosed full blown placenta accretia. (Notwithstanding your situation described in the next paragraph.) The outcome for this condition is almost always caesarean hysterectomy. And the difference in difficulty, seriousness and recovery time between early elective caesarean hysterectomy and an emergency one taking place at term means if there is an option it is always the first.
But in either case it doesn't result in maternal deaths in Ireland. (That's what I meant by always successful.) And the same is true in other developed countries.

Regarding the safety of our system for pregnant mothers, it’s difficult to be perfectly objective and not bring personal experience into it – as happens with every personal choice. On my last pregnancy, my potential placenta accreta was missed until Week 38. I was scanned at Week 22 and the sonographer recommended I get a further scan at 34 weeks. She told me it was because it looked like I had placenta previa but the placenta would likely move before 34 weeks. If it didn’t, I’d have to have a c-section. I knew I was going to have a c-section anyway, so didn’t realise the import of having another scan. I’d never heard of placenta accreta. I raised it with my consultant at 38 weeks and he was quite flustered and insisted I get scanned straight away. I’m not at all blaming him, he works in an understaffed and over-stretched system, he missed the big red “rescan” stamp on my 22 week scan results, but that’s understandable when you’re dealing with women in 5 minute appointment slots. And he was brilliant during that stressful week before the surgery. But had I actually got the condition, and had gone into early labour – which I believe is quite common – they would not have had a chance to make all the preparations that they did and I might have a had a very different outcome.

So forgive me for being a little sceptical of this perfect maternity system.

If the condition is identified (and if present it usually is) a non emergency termination can be carried out. Depending on how early this happens the childs prospects can be good to very good.
It is important to note, and seems to be wilfully ignored by some, that our Medical Council guidelines, Section 48, which govern this stipulate that even if a threat to the mother’s life is not immediate or inevitable it can be acted upon and the pregnancy terminated.

This is at odds to what I was told. I was told had I gone for my scan at 34 weeks I would have been admitted to the hospital for four weeks until I had got to full term. I had asked whether I could have been induced at 34 weeks and they said that wasn’t the normal practice. They were absolutely convinced I had placenta accreta but ultrasounds can’t tell how far the placenta has grown into your uterus, so they had no idea how severe my condition might have been. At 34 weeks maybe 90% of the damage would have been done, but I find it odd that I would not have been presented with the pros and cons to my health and to the baby’s of waiting to full term and been allowed to choose to wait or avail of the early induction. Perhaps the severity of my condition wasn’t considered "close enough" to inevitable to warrant an induction. I wonder is that something to do with the 8th?

In trying to understand your story for myself I am focussed on the following.
1 You had a scan at 38 weeks

2 After this "They were absolutely convinced I had placenta accreta."

3 You didn't have a caesarean hysterectomy

So if I've understood right the ultrasound at 38 weeks revealed what was technically placenta accreta but it was determined somehow that it was not severe enough to warrant a caesarean hysterectomy and instead, happily, you were able to have a "normal" caesarean when the time came (39 weeks?).



You then had a further question for them as to what might have happened if you had had the 34 week scan.

You were told you wouldn't have been inducted at 34 weeks but would have been admitted to the hospital for four weeks until you had got to full term.

The way I understand that is they were answering your question in the context of knowing that your placenta accreta was not severe and that is what the 34 week ultrasound would have revealed. (I know what you were told about the accuracy of an ultrasound in determing the detailed extent of the condition. Nonetheless either it or an MRI is usually successful in determining if the situation is severe enough for intervention)

As mentioned above, in the case of diagnosed full blown placenta accretia it is far more desirable to perform an early elective caesarean hysterectomy. As I understand it nobody would choose to wait until it came to term to perform a much more serious emergency caesarean hysterectomy
But in relation to this hypothetical situation where you had the 34 week scan and your wondering whether you would "have been presented with the pros and cons to my health and to the baby’s of waiting to full term and been allowed to choose to wait or avail of the early induction.";
the one thing it is easy to say is that the judgements made at this point in your care would have had nothing to do with the 8th amendment.
As far as safeguarding the rights of the child went it would be a choice between delivery at 34 weeks and a delivery at term. When the survival rate for both is the same.

What also might be feeding into my choices is the fact that my last pregnancy was a crisis pregnancy. I have some health issues from my previous two pregnancies, not severe but painful and limiting. I really didn’t want to put the pressure on my body of a third pregnancy and c-section, especially at my age. I ordered the pills online the day I took the pregnancy test (4 weeks), and gave myself two weeks to think about it. In the end I warmed to the idea and was willing to take on the exacerbated health issues, so didn’t take the pills.

You're a hero. And you will be rewarded at private unexpected moments for the rest of your life.

Annasopra

MkaylaK wrote: »

Thank you for your replies and thank you to those who are supporting my original post. I did not intend to cause such a stir.
Due to the amount of replies I will not be able to reply to you all individually, (the leaving cert is fast approaching) but I do not want to be seen as running away from the situation so I will write this final post in response to some of the points raised.

"The legislation won't allow DS and cleft palette babies to be aborted." - Under proposed legislation any baby can be aborted up to 12 weeks without a specific reason and after this time limit, there will be no gestational limits in cases of a foetal condition or on grounds of risk to health. Down syndrome and Cleft palette fall into this category.

"What about the health/rights of pregnant women?"- It's already present in the constitution that a woman's life will always be the priority when pregnant. She will never be refused medical treatment when she needs it.

"Until 17 weeks heart cells beat spontaneously" - My point was always that the heart is beating, spontaneously or otherwise, it's beating.

"Read some 'In her shoes accounts" - I have. Do I think these people are awful people? Of course not but still, it would be hypocritical of me to say that I agree with abortion.

"Do I have a right to tell women in crisis pregnancies what is right for them?" No, but should we give an abortionist the right to end a life? Personally, I don't think so.

"Does a fertilized egg have a right to life?" If it's actively growing and maturing as humans do, then yes.

"What if the baby/foetus will die anyway?"- No doctor can ever diagnose a 0% chance of survival. They have to use the term "life -limiting condition" because they simply do not know if a life will last 5 seconds or 5 years after birth. There are always miracle children. (Please watch a few videos from the YouTube channel "Special books for special kids")

"Why the heart? Why not talk about the spleen or liver" - By all means, substitute whatever organ you wish instead of the heart. The same principle applies.

As I said, this has to be my final post for now as I have to study for the LC, but please remember, it's not too late to change your stance.

This is nonsense.

The idea there will be many abortions because of downs syndrome or a cleft palate is complete and utter nonsense
1 These conditions are not diagnosed under 12 weeks.
2 After 12 weeks in the proposed legislation abortion is only available in 3 specific circumstances

12 weeks +: Risk to life of pregnant person and foetus has not reached viability (Head 4)

12 weeks +: Risk of serious harm to health of pregnant person and foetus has not reached viability (Head 4)

12 weeks +: the foetus has been diagnosed with a condition likely to lead to its death before or shortly after birth (Head 6)

So please stop with the lies about abotions for cleft palates snd downs syndrome

It is ignorant and downright lies to say that it is in the constitution to say a womans health is given priority and that she will never be refused treatment when she needs it. This is just horrendous lies that wipes out Sheila Hodgers and Savita Halapanavar and the many other women whose lives have been put at risk because of the 8th.

mohawk

mohawk wrote: »

In fairness many were against that too.

Actually this was "discussed" in the Christianity thread by one pro life member who said that the morning after pill was not the same as abortion, with support from posters who openly state their Christian, despite evidence being shown that from a religious hierarchy perspective it is abortion.

It wasn't even a case of mental gymnastics from the poster other than them constantly posting that the moring after pill was not abortion and everyone else was wrong.

horseburger

swampgas wrote: »

I can't see how anyone can support the 8th amendment, which prioritises a week-old embryo over an actual person.

Maybe I'm getting you wrong, but you seem to be saying that because an embryo or foetus is "human life" this means that it cannot be aborted, and to hell with the consequences for the pregnant woman.

What's proposed is to remove the 8th, and leglislate for abortions on request up to 12 weeks. That seems sensible to me. A woman should be able to decide for herself in the first 12 weeks of a pregnancy whether she wants to continue with it or not. After that the 8th should not be putting a woman's life at risk if the pregnancy goes wrong.

I haven't stated anything to disregard the consequences for a pregnant woman.

For example I have replied to a poster who asked me if I thought abortion should be available in the case of a particular medical diagnosis when the mother's life is at risk, and I have stated it should.

In response to the poster, I tried outlining an argument for making abortion available, in a circumstance where current law doesn't permit abortion for a particular medical circumstance, where there is a risk to a pregnant woman's life. I tried arguing this, with reference to the legal arguments outlined for permitting abortion in cases where there is a risk of a suicide.

I have said that I would be far more responsive to the perspectives outlined by Donal Lynch of the Sunday Independent, who writes openly about the issue, and advocates a pro choice view, than I would about the arguments made for abortion that have been outlined by public representatives like Ruth Coppinger and Bríd Smith. I thought Bríd Smith came across very poorly, in making her arguments, in that Tonight with Vincent Browne debate with Maria Steen and Caroline Simons, on 6th July 2017.

https://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/41/128607/0/Tonight-with-Vincent-Browne

Here are a few articles by Donal Lynch in the Sunday Independent discussing this issue of abortion:

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/prochoicers-should-see-abortion-as-a-necessary-social-evil-34222919.html

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/why-my-fellow-repealers-cant-face-the-facts-around-abortion-35039115.html

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/understanding-the-selective-compassion-of-abortion-vote-36691948.html

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/im-liberal-so-why-does-abortion-make-me-uneasy-34925783.html

pleas advice

Pedro K wrote: »

I replied to that earlier in the thread. The implication is the same. That women will flock to their doctors claiming mental health issues to procure abortions.

We heard that before when the PLDPA2013 was being debated. It didn't happen. We are hearing it again. Like many slippery slope fallacies before it.

You are being disingenuous at best to suggest that it will happen.

EDIT: here's my original reply.

I'm not suggesting anyone will 'flock' anywhere, or that anyone will lie to get an abortion.

I'm just asking, under what circumstances will abortions be allowed. Will mental distress caused by carrying a severely disabled pregnancy be grounds for an abortion, if the mother should choose?

swampgas

horseburger wrote: »

I haven't stated anything to disregard the consequences for a pregnant woman.

For example I have replied to a poster who asked me if I thought abortion should be available in the case of a particular medical diagnosis when the mother's life is at risk, and I have stated it should.

In response to the poster, I tried outlining an argument for making abortion available, in a circumstance where current law doesn't permit abortion for a particular medical circumstance, where there is a risk to a pregnant woman's life. I tried arguing this, with reference to the legal arguments outlined for permitting abortion in cases where there is a risk of a suicide.

I have said that I would be far more responsive to the perspectives outlined by Donal Lynch of the Sunday Independent, who writes openly about the issue, and advocates a pro choice view, than I would about the arguments made for abortion that have been outlined by public representatives like Ruth Coppinger and Bríd Smith. I thought Bríd Smith came across very poorly, in making her arguments, in that Tonight with Vincent Browne debate with Maria Steen and Caroline Simons, on 6th July 2017.

https://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/41/128607/0/Tonight-with-Vincent-Browne

Here are a few articles by Donal Lynch in the Sunday Independent discussing this issue of abortion:

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/prochoicers-should-see-abortion-as-a-necessary-social-evil-34222919.html

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/why-my-fellow-repealers-cant-face-the-facts-around-abortion-35039115.html

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/understanding-the-selective-compassion-of-abortion-vote-36691948.html

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/comment/im-liberal-so-why-does-abortion-make-me-uneasy-34925783.html

So - you will be voting to repeal the 8th then?

horseburger

robarmstrong wrote: »

The interviewer didn't ask people, he asked one person, one person does not equal "people" unless there are more videos stemming from this particular clip?

Also, those questions? Ridiculous. Taking a fetus out of utero partially to perform an operation and place said fetus back in is nowhere close in comparison to being considered being "born", video clearly shows the intelligence (or lack of in this instance) of the interviewer.

There are a number of different interviews done, by that interviewer.

If you care to spend a few seconds on youtube, you'll find them.

He outlined that scenario, to challenge the idea that the foetus is not human until birth, which is what Bríd Smith claimed on the Vincent Browne show on 6th July 2017.

horseburger

swampgas wrote: »

So - you will be voting to repeal the 8th then?

I haven't decided yet, that's why I posted on this forum, to try and get different perspectives.

If my decision was based on the attitude of some of the posters, my decision would be a lot more definitive.

pleas advice

pleas advice wrote: »

I'm not suggesting anyone will 'flock' anywhere, or that anyone will lie to get an abortion.

I'm just asking, under what circumstances will abortions be allowed. Will mental distress caused by carrying a severely disabled pregnancy be grounds for an abortion, if the mother should choose?

I'm not sure what you mean by a severely disabled pregnancy, you might perhaps clarify that, but based on similar questions by others take a look at

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-will-seek-to-ban-late-term-abortions-1.3440056

Ave Sodalis

horseburger wrote: »

I haven't decided yet, that's why I posted on this forum, to try and get different perspectives.

If my decision was based on the attitude of some of the posters, my decision would be a lot more definitive.

Question; if you're not sure yet, why are you only arguing against repeal?

Also, if you want to know why posters are responding to you the way they are, it's to do with your posting style. The harping on about human life, despite mod warning. The stating things and pretending you didn't mean that even though you clearly did. The not answering questions (which I STILL have not had an answer for). The videos and links that have nothing to do with the discussion, particularly when the discussion isn't going the way you want it. And yet you wonder why posters have an "attitude" when replying to you.

AtomicHorror

MkaylaK wrote: »

"The legislation won't allow DS and cleft palette babies to be aborted." - Under proposed legislation any baby can be aborted up to 12 weeks without a specific reason and after this time limit, there will be no gestational limits in cases of a foetal condition or on grounds of risk to health. Down syndrome and Cleft palette fall into this category.

That's not true. After 12 weeks, the foetal condition has to be one which would cause death before birth or shortly after, as determined by at least 2 doctors.

Before 12 weeks those conditions can't be diagnosed.

MkaylaK wrote: »

"What if the baby/foetus will die anyway?"- No doctor can ever diagnose a 0% chance of survival. They have to use the term "life -limiting condition" because they simply do not know if a life will last 5 seconds or 5 years after birth. There are always miracle children. (Please watch a few videos from the YouTube channel "Special books for special kids")

That's a dodge. By that logic, no doctor can advise withdrawal of treatment for a terminally ill patient. They can't be 100% certain it'l be fatal, so they have to continue treating them no matter how poor the odds or how bad the suffering? Come on.

MkaylaK wrote: »

"Why the heart? Why not talk about the spleen or liver" - By all means, substitute whatever organ you wish instead of the heart. The same principle applies.

The same principle doesn't apply. If I say that the spleen that forms under your diaphragm as a foetus is the same spleen you have as an adult, people will shrug and think "So...?". Someone told you the heart anecdote because it has special meaning to people for various romantic, cultural and sentimental reasons. It is an appeal to the emotions, but one that happens to have no meaningful foundation.

MkaylaK wrote: »

As I said, this has to be my final post for now as I have to study for the LC, but please remember, it's not too late to change your stance.

You really need to change your stance, or base it on something more substantial. This is history in the making and you will likely live long enough to deeply regret the side you took, or at the very least the reasons you took it.

blanch152

horseburger wrote: »

There are a number of different interviews done, by that interviewer.

If you care to spend a few seconds on youtube, you'll find them.

He outlined that scenario, to challenge the idea that the foetus is not human until birth, which is what Bríd Smith claimed on the Vincent Browne show on 6th July 2017.

They are all propaganda videos, not independently produced.

Defunkd

Shadowstrife wrote: »

Also, I can't stress this enough:

When contraception is free & abortion is Legal, the abortion rates fall dramatically.

Saving the 8th will not stop abortion. It will happen with the same regularity it always has, but swept under the rug in illegality.

I think you should review your sources. Statista.com and Johnston's Archive says very different to your claim about drastic rate drops. Their business is statistics so if you want to see numbers for yourself, visit either.

RobertKK

Some wouldn’t believe the Gardai are involved over the illegal removal of retain the 8th posters.

https://twitter.com/giftedtim/status/985981154024189953?s=21

pleas advice

DubInMeath wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by a severely disabled pregnancy, you might perhaps clarify that, but based on similar questions by others take a look at

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-will-seek-to-ban-late-term-abortions-1.3440056

I'm referring to pregnancies between 12 and 24 weeks, where there is a non-fatal fetal abnormality

Ave Sodalis

Martina1991 wrote: »

Save the 8th have posters of a fully formed baby painted on a woman's belly saying "If killing a baby at 6 months bothers you, vote no".

How can these blatant lies be allowed on these posters.

https://twitter.com/daimbarrs/status/983120601576591361/photo/1

Unbelievable... honestly, the No side are worried about posters that could have been taken down by the ESB, or by members of their own side to stir trouble (like has been down NUMEROUS times before), or not at all.... and then they expect us to ignore the dirty, dishonest, cheap things they do such as these posters?

pleas advice

pleas advice wrote: »

I'm referring to pregnancies between 12 and 24 weeks, where there is a non-fatal fetal abnormality

Ok then I'm going to have to ask what a severely disabled pregnancy is.

AtomicHorror

RobertKK wrote: »

Some wouldn’t believe the Gardai are involved over the illegal removal of retain the 8th posters.

https://twitter.com/giftedtim/status/985981154024189953?s=21

That reads like a boilerplate response to a reported crime, but I guess it means they're taking it seriously.

Hell they event tapped it into PULSE. The worlds ****tiest database.

So there'll be CSO stats on poster vandalism next year, which I guess is something.

AtomicHorror

LimeGreenBean wrote: »

I can't believe this is my first post, but I guess this is the crux of the pro-life movement and to be honest, it has just really started to bug me how often this statement has been glossed over in the last few months. Not to be disrespectful to anyone on this thread or the repeal movement in general, you have changed many people's views on abortion. Anyways, in response to this argument:

You justify destroying human life every single day. Have you ever donated blood, or bone marrow, or a lung? No, probably not. Are you a murderer because you haven't? Countless people die waiting on kidney transplants lists. And you could give them a kidney, you could keep them alive. Are you a terrible person because you don't? If you are involved in a car crash and you're brain dead will the doctors and nurses ravage your body for organs? No, they won't, they'll ask your family what you want and they will respect your wishes.

We don't force people to donate their bone marrow, even though it would save countless lives. We don't call people up to donate their kidney's like it's jury service. We don't label suicide victims as murders, even though their now useless organs could have saved many people's lives. If you somehow find a surgeon and ask him to remove a kidney so that you can keep it in a jar, you won't be charged with murder, even though that kidney could have saved someone's life. The surgeon also won't be charged with murder. We respect people's right to do what they want to their body regardless of whether someone else will suffer or die.

Except, in pregnancy. A woman's organs keep the baby/foetus/whatever-name-you-want alive, she sustains their life. Should she not get to decide how her organs are used? Should she not get to decide what happens to her body? We allow brain-dead people to decide what will happen to their body when they die. Think about it, we give fewer rights to pregnant women, than we do to brain-dead people, in this country.

When I was 18, (which was only 4 years ago) I felt the exact same way you did, honestly. I just want to give you a different slant on things. I hope you vote, this will probably be your first one.

That's a pretty epic debut. Welcome.

pleas advice

DubInMeath wrote: »

Ok then I'm going to have to ask what a severely disabled pregnancy is.

well, thats part of what I'm asking. At what point is a pregnancy judged to be a threat to the mental health of the woman.

Billy86

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That reads like a boilerplate response to a reported crime, but I guess it means they're taking it seriously.

Hell they event tapped it into PULSE. The worlds ****tiest database.

So there'll be CSO stats on poster vandalism next year, which I guess is something.

I'll be honest, this sprung to mind.

There was fiercely strong wind for a bit after 5pm in Rathfarnham today, I saw two posters get ripped right off street poles. I'm not on Twitter but would almost expect pictures of them on the ground have been doing the rounds already.

robarmstrong

pleas advice wrote: »

well, thats part of what I'm asking. At what point is a pregnancy judged to be a threat to the mental health of the woman.

I've suggested this to you already but you need to ask the medical professionals behind Doctors For Choice Twitter, they are best qualified to give you the answer to your question, I can't speak for us all obviously but I doubt there are a string of medical professionals following this thread - if there are by all means they can answer you but there's honestly no point continually asking a question that nobody here realistically is qualified to answer.

It would also be a tremendous learning experience to gather those opinions, by the way.

pleas advice

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That's a pretty epic debut. Welcome.

epic, but kinda misses the point completely.

there is a difference between active destruction of a human life, and passive indifference