Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

gctest50

Mules wrote: »

Regardless of the views of the journalist, the study you posted details the facts. They are no different than what's in the indo article.

A couple of FMSs commented on the relief experienced when the baby dies, confirming that their diagnosis was ‘right’. Their fear of getting it wrong is associated with the ‘difficult’ legislation,and that ‘under the legislation, [they] can’t have babies who survive for a long period of time’, i.e. beyond the28 days referenced within the legislation. Legislative challenges were identified by most participants, primarily ambiguity, ‘understanding what the legislation allows for’ and which conditions are deemed fatal

gctest50

Mules wrote: »

Regardless of the views of the journalist, the study you posted details the facts. They are no different than what's in the indo article.

No ?


Internal conflict and emotional challenges

To be honest, I struggled with this quite a bit. But I’ve seen so many women traumatised in this situation, the fatal fetal and lethal, LLCs (life-limiting conditions), that I think the right thing for that group is to offer this treatment in Ireland

It is always very sad and emotional, it is difficult but something that I guess I have been doing for a long time and I am aware that I am doing it for a long time. It doesn’t necessarily mean it is easier, it is always very sad

I remember getting sick out in the corridors afterwards because I thought it (feticide) was such an awful procedure and so dreadful. You have to see the positive in it otherwise you would drive yourself mad

Ultimately you feel some degree of positivity if you get people through. And then if you see them back in another pregnancy and they’ve made it and so on, that’s good

Mules

gctest50 wrote: »

A couple of FMSs commented on the relief experienced when the baby dies, confirming that their diagnosis was ‘right’. Their fear of getting it wrong is associated with the ‘difficult’ legislation,and that ‘under the legislation, [they] can’t have babies who survive for a long period of time’, i.e. beyond the28 days referenced within the legislation. Legislative challenges were identified by most participants, primarily ambiguity, ‘understanding what the legislation allows for’ and which conditions are deemed fatal

What did they mean by getting it wrong?

lazygal

I presume they mean the condition might not be "fatal enough " as per the restrictive legislation.

Hotblack Desiato

Yeah then there's the prospect of 14 years in prison for carrying out a medical procedure in good faith.

lazygal

Mules wrote: »

I read the article in the independent about the report in to late term abortions in Ireland. It describes babies being born alive and left to die. I support abortion but that is seriously wrong. .

These are babies who are being held by their parents as they die because they have fatal abnormalities.


Many medical procedures sound horrible when described outside of a medical context. But this 'babies born alive and left to die' is a phrase used by Youth Defence/LoveBoth/Iona Institute to try to roll back access to abortions for people who have had to travel for decades to get medical care and then get their babies' ashes in the post weeks later.


It is nothing more than a disingenuous tactic to try to restrict and then eliminate all access to abortion, using emotive and misleading language.



And if, as prolife people believe, all abortion is wrong, why are later term abortions the focus here? Does abortion get more wrong the later in the pregnancy it happens or something?

smacl

gctest50 wrote: »

That's a link to part of an opinion piece by some patron of the Iona Institute

Any link to the actual study ?

Mod warning: Post edited. While many here have no time for the Iona Instute, let's keep it civil and avoid anything that could be construed as defamatory.

volchitsa

Mules wrote: »

The problem the doctors are having is it's not fatal as in the fetus is born dead or near death.. It's that it can live for weeks or months so it's not black and white. When I thought of fatal during the referendum, I thought it meant 'will be born dead or will die immediately' The study quotes a description given as 'not fatal enough' I think that's a good description.

That's still pretty black and white to me. A baby that dies of something that it had from birth and that can't be treated is fatally ill even if it takes months for death to occur.

Mules

lazygal wrote: »

These are babies who are being held by their parents as they die because they have fatal abnormalities.


Many medical procedures sound horrible when described outside of a medical context. But this 'babies born alive and left to die' is a phrase used by Youth Defence/LoveBoth/Iona Institute to try to roll back access to abortions for people who have had to travel for decades to get medical care and then get their babies' ashes in the post weeks later.


It is nothing more than a disingenuous tactic to try to restrict and then eliminate all access to abortion, using emotive and misleading language.



And if, as prolife people believe, all abortion is wrong, why are later term abortions the focus here? Does abortion get more wrong the later in the pregnancy it happens or something?

I think the phrase was used by the doctor, maybe not in those exact words, I'd have to look at the study. Someone posted a link up thread

I'm very uncomfortable with abortion when it's late enough in the pregnancy that the fetus would survive outside the womb. I'd imagine that's what pro life people think too. It makes it seem like a baby rather than a fetus.

I never have seen abortion in black and white. It's very complicated for me. It's an issue that I find it very hard to decide what the right thing is.

Mules

volchitsa wrote: »

That's still pretty black and white to me. A baby that dies of something that it had from birth and that can't be treated is fatally ill even if it takes months for death to occur.

Looking at it dispassionately I would agree with you. Usually I'm not an emotional decision maker but not in this situation.

ohnonotgmail

Mules wrote: »

I think the phrase was used by the doctor, maybe not in those exact words, I'd have to look at the study. Someone posted a link up thread

Not fatal enough = Will kill the baby but not guaranteed to do so within the 28 days mentioned in legislation.

Mules

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Not fatal enough = Will kill the baby but not guaranteed to do so within the 28 days mentioned in legislation.

I can imagine that deciding whether a condition is or isn't fatal within a set time is very hard. All you could go by are the average survival rate with that particular condition. I can imagine the doctors would be uneasy about it.

Whatever about the doctors, it must be such an awful decision for the parents. It's the stuff of worst nightmares

Igotadose

10 'specialists' in Ireland being interviewed, does not a study make. More to follow, but this is a lightweight study

Mules

Igotadose wrote: »

10 'specialists' in Ireland being interviewed, does not a study make. More to follow, but this is a lightweight study

I would wonder how many specialists in this area there are? I can't imagine there are many, particularly as abortion hasn't been legalised that long.

Bannasidhe

Mules wrote: »

I'm very uncomfortable with abortion when it's late enough in the pregnancy that the fetus would survive outside the womb. I'd imagine that's what pro life people think too. It makes it seem like a baby rather than a fetus.

I never have seen abortion in black and white. It's very complicated for me. It's an issue that I find it very hard to decide what the right thing is.

'Aborting' the pregnancy does not mean ending life. It means ending the pregnancy.
Late term abortion can also refer to labour being induced/caesarean section resulting in a live premature birth.

Pro-life people like to muddy the waters by deliberately failing to be precise with the terms they use. "Late -term" is left vague due to it's emotive value.

Technically my pregnancy was aborted - as I was induced due to complications. The 'fetus' is now a 36 year old man.

The 'right thing to do' imo is allow it to be a private matter between the person who is pregnant and their doctors.

Also imo the only people who would believe that anyone would carry a pregnancy for 6/7/8 months and then decide to terminate *insert 'just because' reason here* has never been pregnant.

Mules

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'Aborting' the pregnancy does not mean ending life. It means ending the pregnancy.
Late term abortion can also refer to labour being induced/caesarean section resulting in a live premature birth.

Pro-life people like to muddy the waters by deliberately failing to be precise with the terms they use. "Late -term" is left vague due to it's emotive value.

Technically my pregnancy was aborted - as I was induced due to complications. The 'fetus' is now a 36 year old man.

The 'right thing to do' imo is allow it to be a private matter between the person who is pregnant and their doctors.

Also imo the only people who would believe that anyone would carry a pregnancy for 6/7/8 months and then decide to terminate *insert 'just because' reason here* has never been pregnant.

Ya, I can only imagine what a difficult decision it would be. It's an awful thing to happen to someone.

Bannasidhe

Mules wrote: »

Ya, I can only imagine what a difficult decision it would be. It's an awful thing to happen to someone.

Not necessarily.
Sometimes the being pregnant is the awful thing - for many different reasons, and the no longer being pregnant is a relief.

Mules

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not necessarily.
Sometimes the being pregnant is the awful thing - for many different reasons, and the no longer being pregnant is a relief.

I hadn't thought of that. Fortunately I've never been in that situation.

lazygal

In the very unlikely event I got pregnant again it wouldn't be a heart rending difficult decision to have an abortion. I'm done having children so the only hard thing would be having to wait three days under the Coveney compromise to get the pills I need.

Hotblack Desiato

Because you haven't really thought it over until a man has told you to think it over... :rolleyes:

lazygal

The notions of mandatory counselling or a wait are proof positive that women are seen as silly things who don't know what they want. It should be mandatory to wait and have counselling before men have sex each and every time in case they get someone pregnant.

eviltwin

lazygal wrote: »

The notions of mandatory counselling or a wait are proof positive that women are seen as silly things who don't know what they want. It should be mandatory to wait and have counselling before men have sex each and every time in case they get someone pregnant.

I hate the idea of forced counselling. It’s not like it isn’t available for those who want it. As you say it just perpetuates the idea that women are a bit ditzy and unable to make decisions on their own and the idea that abortion is somehow wrong or worse than having a child even though that has a bigger impact on ones life. We don’t have mandatory counselling for women who have babies, it shouldn’t be compulsory to access abortion.

lazygal

My consultant didn't suggest counselling before my tubal ligation either. As an adult she respected my reproductive choices.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch

lazygal wrote: »

The notions of mandatory counselling or a wait are proof positive that women are seen as silly things who don't know what they want.

I'm not so sure. I believe that anti-abortionists introduce mandatory delays, not because they believe that women are stupid, but because they want to make it harder for women to procure abortions by adding more steps to the process or by lengthening the process.

I'd also imagine that at least some pro-abortion people believe that what's essentially a "cooling-off period" is reasonable to include, at least in some cases. Cooling off periods are used, for example, in finance where a customer is given a period of time following the signing of some financial agreement during which they can decide to reverse their decision without penalty. They're there not because people are considered stupid - though some people have told me definitely that they are - but because sometimes people have second thoughts or found a better deal elsewhere in the interim.

volchitsa

robindch wrote: »

I'm not so sure. I believe that anti-abortionists introduce mandatory delays, not because they believe that women are stupid, but because they want to make it harder for women to procure abortions by adding more steps to the process or by lengthening the process.

I'd also imagine that at least some pro-abortion people believe that what's essentially a "cooling-off period" is reasonable to include, at least in some cases. Cooling off periods are used, for example, in finance where a customer is given a period of time following the signing of some financial agreement during which they can decide to reverse their decision without penalty. They're there not because people are considered stupid - though some people have told me definitely that they are - but because sometimes people have second thoughts or found a better deal elsewhere in the interim.

The cooling off period for big purchases or loans is needed because people are actively being talked into committing by salespeople who are good at convincing you to do something - that's their job.

There's nothing similar with abortion.

Igotadose

volchitsa wrote: »

The cooling off period for big purchases or loans is needed because people are actively being talked into committing by salespeople who are good at convincing you to do something - that's their job.

There's nothing similar with abortion.

A report on the waiting off periods as used and their effectiveness. Recommendation is, don't have them

https://www.dovepress.com/mandatory-waiting-periods-before-abortion-and-sterilization-theory-and-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-IJWH

lazygal

robindch wrote: »

I'm not so sure. I believe that anti-abortionists introduce mandatory delays, not because they believe that women are stupid, but because they want to make it harder for women to procure abortions by adding more steps to the process or by lengthening the process.

I'd also imagine that at least some pro-abortion people believe that what's essentially a "cooling-off period" is reasonable to include, at least in some cases. Cooling off periods are used, for example, in finance where a customer is given a period of time following the signing of some financial agreement during which they can decide to reverse their decision without penalty. They're there not because people are considered stupid - though some people have told me definitely that they are - but because sometimes people have second thoughts or found a better deal elsewhere in the interim.

Why did you feel the need to explain things to me?

robindch

lazygal wrote: »

Why did you feel the need to explain things to me?

Good heavens, I'm not "explaining" things to you. I am putting forward my beliefs and my point of view - please read my post carefully - on this specific area on the understanding that this we are both taking part in a discussion.

As to your question - I wrote as I did because you claimed that mandatory delays are introduced for one reason only, while I believe that there may be other reasons as well.

robindch

volchitsa wrote: »

The cooling off period for big purchases or loans is needed because people are actively being talked into committing by salespeople who are good at convincing you to do something - that's their job.

In addition to big purchases and loans, cooling-off periods are also part of many (all?) insurance and assurance policies, all goods and services purchased in the EU over the phone, by mail order as well - as you correctly point out - the riskier sales that happen at the behest of a pushy salesperson.

There's no presumption that I can find that the cooling-off period is there because the legislators (or the service providers) believe that the consumer might be one of those (as above) "silly things who don't know what they want".

Igotadose wrote: »

https://www.dovepress.com/mandatory-waiting-periods-before-abortion-and-sterilization-theory-and-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-IJWH

"Concern about the validity of consent is best addressed by protective clinical guidelines rather than through rigid legislation."

Thanks for the link - the comment about validity of consent is quite correct.

volchitsa

robindch wrote: »

In addition to big purchases and loans, cooling-off periods are also part of many (all?) insurance and assurance policies, all goods and services purchased in the EU over the phone, by mail order as well - as you correctly point out - the riskier sales that happen at the behest of a pushy salesperson.

There's no presumption that I can find that the cooling-off period is there because the legislators (or the service providers) believe that the consumer might be one of those (as above) "silly things who don't know what they want".Thanks for the link - the comment about validity of consent is quite correct.

Npne of which changes my point, which you're still missing, it seems: there is no cooling off period for someone who walks into a shop to buy something.

Similarly there is no need for a cooling off period for someone who walks into a doctor's surgery and asks for a termination. In both cases the person has made a decision and is responsible for it.

The need for a delay is only there because there is some risk that a person may have been mis-sold something by advertising or sleight of hand or just pushiness, and your examples don't refute that. It's not just because it's a serious decision, as you appear to think: if I go to a garage forecourt and sign a cheque for a new car, I'll be held to that. There's no "cooling off" period then.

Igotadose

volchitsa wrote: »

Npne of which changes my point, which you're still missing, it seems: there is no cooling off period for someone who walks into a shop to buy something.

Similarly there is no need for a cooling off period for someone who walks into a doctor's surgery and asks for a termination. In both cases the person has made a decision and is responsible for it.

The need for a delay is only there because there is some risk that a person may have been mis-sold something by advertising or sleight of hand or just pushiness, and your examples don't refute that. It's not just because it's a serious decision, as you appear to think: if I go to a garage forecourt and sign a cheque for a new car, I'll be held to that. There's no "cooling off" period then.

No cooling off for vasectomies either

ohnonotgmail

volchitsa wrote: »

Npne of which changes my point, which you're still missing, it seems: there is no cooling off period for someone who walks into a shop to buy something.

Similarly there is no need for a cooling off period for someone who walks into a doctor's surgery and asks for a termination. In both cases the person has made a decision and is responsible for it.

The need for a delay is only there because there is some risk that a person may have been mis-sold something by advertising or sleight of hand or just pushiness, and your examples don't refute that. It's not just because it's a serious decision, as you appear to think: if I go to a garage forecourt and sign a cheque for a new car, I'll be held to that. There's no "cooling off" period then.

I was just coming in to say exactly that. With online sales or sales of financial products you have a consumer and another party that is very motivated to make a sale to that consumer. That motivation may lead them to be less than truthful. The same situation does not exist with a woman going to a doctor for an abortion that I am aware of. there is no incentive for the doctor to lie in order to convince the woman to have an abortion. Certainly none that I am aware of. Also the woman has usually made her mind up before consulting the doctor. Therefore I think the analogy put forward by Robinph is flawed.

eviltwin

Is there a cooling off period for any other procedure such as plastic surgery or tattoos?

lazygal

Not in law. The waiting period for abortion is legally mandated.

Loafing Oaf

Igotadose wrote: »

No cooling off for vasectomies either

I thought ice packs were sometimes used in the immediate aftermath...

robindch

volchitsa wrote: »

None of which changes my point, which you're still missing, it seems: there is no cooling off period for someone who walks into a shop to buy something.

So far as I'm aware, the US is the only country which mandates supplier-side delays to abortion services. Some US states, almost certainly different ones, mandate supplier-side delays to marriage licenses and purchasing firearms - the latter of which I suspect I wouldn't be alone in this forum in supporting. While the two situations are clearly completely different, I believe that they exist, as I said above, at least in part, because some of the legislators responsible for them believe that mandated, supplier-side delays may cut down the incidence of the service being carried out.

My point, again, is not that this is a good idea in the case of abortions - my position is that the woman seeking an abortion should be provided with unbiased medical advice and that the clinician should make a decision which she/he believes is in the best interests of the woman, and that this should apply to all medical advice and all medical procedures.

On the contrary, I'm suggesting that the blanket claim made earlier in the thread that these laws are brought in because legislators believe that women are "silly things who don't know what they want" may not be fully accurate. I certainly haven't heard the view expressed that legally-mandated, supplier-side delays to gun purchases are there because the legislators believe that gun purchasers are "silly" - on the contrary, I think most legislators legislate for these delays because they believe - in my view accurately - that they will reduce the chances of a rash decision leading to an outcome which may be difficult to reverse.

That's aside from reports of women forced to undergo abortions and it may be that some pro-choice legislators believe that a legally-mandated, supplier-side delay might help reduce these.

Igotadose wrote: »

No cooling off for vasectomies either

Not true.

A quick google shows that US mandates a 30-day waiting period for publicly-funded male and female sterilization, and it seems that individual US states have separate delays in place for private sterilization operations (California, for example, seems to have a delay of three days):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418554/
https://californiaptc.com/family-planning-training-services/birth-control-methods/vasectomy/

ohnonotgmail

robindch wrote: »

So far as I'm aware, the US is the only country which mandates supplier-side delays to abortion services. Some US states, almost certainly different ones, mandate supplier-side delays to marriage licenses and purchasing firearms - the latter of which I suspect I wouldn't be alone in this forum in supporting. While the two situations are clearly completely different, I believe that they exist, as I said above, at least in part, because some of the legislators responsible for them believe that mandated, supplier-side delays may cut down the incidence of the service being carried out.

My point, again, is not that this is a good idea in the case of abortions - my position is that the woman seeking an abortion should be provided with unbiased medical advice and that the clinician should make a decision which she/he believes is in the best interests of the woman, and that this should apply to all medical advice and all medical procedures.

On the contrary, I'm suggesting that the blanket claim made earlier in the thread that these laws are brought in because legislators believe that women are "silly things who don't know what they want" may not be fully accurate. I certainly haven't heard the view expressed that legally-mandated, supplier-side delays to gun purchases are there because the legislators believe that gun purchasers are "silly" - on the contrary, I think most legislators legislate for these delays because they believe - in my view accurately - that they will reduce the chances of a rash decision leading to an outcome which may be difficult to reverse.

That's aside from reports of women forced to undergo abortions and it may be that some pro-choice legislators believe that a legally-mandated, supplier-side delay might help reduce these.Not true.

A quick google shows that US mandates a 30-day waiting period for publicly-funded male and female sterilization, and it seems that individual US states have separate delays in place for private sterilization operations (California, for example, seems to have a delay of three days):

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4418554/
https://californiaptc.com/family-planning-training-services/birth-control-methods/vasectomy/

again you insist on analogies that dont apply to abortion. you said as much yourself.

Igotadose

Interesting point on the publically-funded vasectomies laws. Unlike in Ireland, though, health care's primarily paid privately in the US, which is why for typical US male, his insurance covers his vasectomy which he can walk into an outpatient clinic and have done, no cooling off.

robindch

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

again you insist on analogies that dont apply to abortion. you said as much yourself.

I'm not "insist"ing on anything. I'm suggesting that the blanket claim made earlier in the thread that these laws are brought in because legislators believe that women are "silly things who don't know what they want" may not be fully accurate.

I'm referring not to my beliefs, which are different and which I have included in the post above as there appears to be persistent doubt or confusion.

I am referring to the possible beliefs of legislators who put these laws in place.

ohnonotgmail

robindch wrote: »

I'm not "insist"ing on anything. I'm suggesting that the blanket claim made earlier in the thread that these laws are brought in because legislators believe that women are "silly things who don't know what they want" may not be fully accurate.

I'm referring not to my beliefs, which are different and which I have included in the post above as there appears to be persistent doubt or confusion.

I am referring to the possible beliefs of legislators who put these laws in place.

and you suggest that by introducing analogies to situations that are in no way similar.

robindch

Igotadose wrote: »

[...] for typical US male, his insurance covers his vasectomy which he can walk into an outpatient clinic and have done, no cooling off.

As above, that's does not seem to be possible in California where there appears to be a legally-mandated three-day delay for privately-funded vasectomies. Haven't checked other states, but it seems likely that other states will have similar delays for privately-funded vasectomies too, especially the less-liberal ones.

robindch

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and you suggest that by introducing analogies to situations that are in no way similar.

I am referring to what legislators may believe.

For at least the third time, I believe differently.

lazygal

I don't need advice when I need an abortion and I definitely don't need three days to make up my mind. Let people who want to wait do so. But there's no reason to make anyone wait for an abortion when they know they want one.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

I am referring to what legislators may believe.

For at least the third time, I believe differently.

I think what is irking people is comparing consumer protection legislation there to protect people from certain ill-advised financial outlays to delaying a medical procedure for no scientific reasons.

If the delay in Irish provision (no point comparing to other jurisdictions esp the US where it varies greatly state to state) is analogous to consumer protection cooling-off laws than imho it very much implies the person seeking an abortion 'may' be acting impulsively and no understand the implications.
Like some smooth tongued salesperson doorstepped them convincing them to switch to their abortion service in the way similar could happen with a life insurance policy containing print so fine the Hubble couldn't pick it up.

It assumes women haven't thought about it, are acting impulsively, don't understand the repercussions - like an OAP buying a funeral payment plan - but there are no similar provisions for other medical procedures.
Also - it treats people seeking abortions as consumers not patients.


Nose job? No problem.
Vasectomy? No problem.
Abortion? Go away and have a think about it.
Insurance policy? Ok, but here'r time to think about it.

eviltwin

lazygal wrote: »

I don't need advice when I need an abortion and I definitely don't need three days to make up my mind. Let people who want to wait do so. But there's no reason to make anyone wait for an abortion when they know they want one.

As a 40 something woman it angers me that I am legally forced to wait three days just in case I change my mind while 18 year old can get face tattoos, plastic surgery or multiple piercings without a second thought.

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

As a 40 something woman it angers me that I am legally forced to wait three days just in case I change my mind while 18 year old can get face tattoos, plastic surgery or multiple piercings without a second thought.

Having a baby is infinitely more life changing and dangerous than an abortion before 12 weeks but the state doesn't mandate a waiting period before people get pregnant.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

It assumes women haven't thought about it, are acting impulsively, don't understand the repercussions [...]

Yes, one can certainly read it that way, however, I think it's useful to consider the possibility - however faint it might be - that legislators introduce mandatory delays because they believe that the delays will cut down on abortions, same way that mandatory delays are thought to cut down on gun sales, where gun sales are believed to be problematic.

Hence my belief that the original blanket claim that these laws are brought in because legislators believe that women are "silly things who don't know what they want" may not accurately convey the full range of reasons why legislators choose to introduce such restrictive legislation.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Vasectomy? No problem.

I don't believe there's a cooling-off period for vasectomies in Ireland - unlike, as above, in the US where there are separate federal and state laws mandating delays for vasectomies - but I also don't know of any guys who've walked into an Irish clinic and had a vasectomy on the same day either. There does seen to be a delay between the original consult, the consent and the operation, not the result of any specific law, but just on account of the delays inherent in any queueing system.

ohnonotgmail

robindch wrote: »

Yes, one can certainly read it that way, however, I think it's useful to consider the possibility - however faint it might be - that legislators introduce mandatory delays because they believe that the delays will cut down on abortions, same way that mandatory delays are thought to cut down on gun sales, where gun sales are believed to be problematic.

Hence my belief that the original blanket claim that these laws are brought in because legislators believe that women are "silly things who don't know what they want" may not accurately convey the full range of reasons why legislators choose to introduce such restrictive legislation.I don't believe there's a cooling-off period for vasectomies in Ireland - unlike, as above, in the US where there are separate federal and state laws mandating delays for vasectomies - but I also don't know of any guys who've walked into an Irish clinic and had a vasectomy on the same day either. There does seen to be a delay between the original consult, the consent and the operation, not the result of any specific law, but just on account of the delays inherent in any queueing system.

cooling off periods for firearms are to prevent impulsive acts of violence. a women seeing a doctor for an abortion can hardly be described as impulsive.

eviltwin

robindch wrote: »

Yes, one can certainly read it that way, however, I think it's useful to consider the possibility - however faint it might be - that legislators introduce mandatory delays because they believe that the delays will cut down on abortions, same way that mandatory delays are thought to cut down on gun sales, where gun sales are believed to be problematic.

Hence my belief that the original blanket claim that these laws are brought in because legislators believe that women are "silly things who don't know what they want" may not accurately convey the full range of reasons why legislators choose to introduce such restrictive legislation.I don't believe there's a cooling-off period for vasectomies in Ireland - unlike, as above, in the US where there are separate federal and state laws mandating delays for vasectomies - but I also don't know of any guys who've walked into an Irish clinic and had a vasectomy on the same day either. There does seen to be a delay between the original consult, the consent and the operation, not the result of any specific law, but just on account of the delays inherent in any queueing system.

Why the need to cut down on abortion? What’s wrong with it?

And wouldn’t the best way to cut down on abortion be to have better sex Ed, access to contraception etc ?