Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

gmisk

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

definitely not jewish nonsense. they are firmly of the belief that sex should be for pleasure as well.

Jewish is a pretty wide term no,?, if you have watched unorthodox I wouldn't be so sure with regards Hasidic etc.

ohnonotgmail

gmisk wrote: »

Jewish is a pretty wide term, if you have watched unorthodox I wouldn't be so sure with regards Hasidic etc.

even for orthodox jews it is the same.

SusieBlue

If only people cared as much about the born children living in poverty, neglect and abusive situations as much as they do about the constitutional rights of something the size of an acorn.

Calling people murderers is not how you reduce the abortion rate. Giving better sex education, free contraception, increasing supports for working parents, single parents, and families with children disabilities is how you decrease the abortion rate.
If the No side focused on that rather than hurling insults then maybe the numbers would start to drop off.

KiKi III

KiKi III wrote: »

This is the greatest load of bollocks I ever heard. Organ donation is never done on a “first come, first served basis”. It’s based on a multitude of factors including which recipient is most closely matched to the donor and who is most likely to survive.

**** me you can't be serious.

Obviously I meant live donors can donate without a set person in mind.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

If only people cared as much about the born children living in poverty, neglect and abusive situations as much as they do about the constitutional rights of something the size of an acorn.

Calling people murderers is not how you reduce the abortion rate. Giving better sex education, free contraception, increasing supports for working parents, single parents, and families with children disabilities is how you decrease the abortion rate.
If the No side focused on that rather than hurling insults then maybe the numbers would start to drop off.

There's plenty of charities and people working to support and help children in need. Far more than argue against abortion.

I agree with your second point. Much of why people on both sides hate the 'no' brigade

SusieBlue

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

In the scenario you compare to there's undeniable and important differences

A, you didn't create the problem that result's in the child needing an organ

B, it's not your child.

C, you aren't talking direct action to end the childs life.

In your example, the child will die without your intervention. In abortion, it will live.

They are important however I would add in that Ireland doesn't currently allow stranger donation from a living source which is something I disagree with as well. In other countries you can donate on a 'first come, first served' basis.

Nope, it’s the same thing. You cannot be forced to give another person use of your body, even if it means they will die.
Women should not lose this right just because they happen to be pregnant. People are more important than potential people, and their needs, wants and requirements should come first unless they choose otherwise.
That’s what it comes down to every single time.

Loafing Oaf

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Husband relives when his wife Savita Halappanavar asked for a termination

So Praveen Halappanavar was lying at the inquest was he?

If that's the level of your understanding, there's not much I can do.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

Nope, it’s the same thing. You cannot be forced to give another person use of your body, even if it means they will die.
Women should not lose this right just because they happen to be pregnant. People are more important than potential people, and their needs, wants and requirements should come first unless they choose otherwise.
That’s what it comes down to every single time.

It really isn't.

Society would collapse with such an attitude being widespread. Thankfully it isn't and people will and do sacrifice for others.

SusieBlue

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

If that's the level of your understanding, there's not much I can do.

Savita died because she & her husband were denied a termination. She was having a miscarriage, her baby was not going to survive anyway but despite her begging, they refused.

Instead she was told no, that this is a catholic country and was made sit there in hospital for over a WEEK with an open dilated cervix for until she inevitably developed sepsis.
An open dilated cervix has an extremely high risk of becoming infectious but she was left there regardless because her baby still had a very faint heartbeat.

When she unsurprisingly developed sepsis, she was still denied care until it got to the point where she was close to dying. The doctors wouldn’t intervene because of the faint fetal heartbeat.
Imagine her poor husband, who had just found out his baby daughter wasn’t going to make it, having to watch his wife slowly fade away and get gradually sicker while his pleas for help were ignored.
Her baby was never going to survive anyway. Savita’s death was completely unnecessary and avoidable and she should never have lost her life.

One of the independent doctors who spoke the inquest of her death said it was the worst, most severe case of sepsis that he had seen in his 30 years in medicine and agreed with other independent contributors that had she been granted an abortion when she requested one, she would never have died.

Loafing Oaf

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

If that's the level of your understanding, there's not much I can do.

You claimed every element of the post in question was incorrect, logically including the assertion that Savita Halappanavar asked for a termination of her pregnancy...

SusieBlue

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

It really isn't.

Society would collapse with such an attitude being widespread. Thankfully it isn't and people will and do sacrifice for others.

Society presently does have that attitude to bodily autonomy and nothing has collapsed.
In fact, I can imagine you’d be the first to protest if forced organ or blood donation was made a legal requirement.

KiKi III

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

**** me you can't be serious.

Obviously I meant live donors can donate without a set person in mind.

Again, what are you on about? Do you think doctors take a kidney out of a donor and just put it on ice, not knowing who they are going to give it to?

Don’t talk about stuff like this if you haven’t the foggiest clue what you’re on about.

Hotblack Desiato

Rodin wrote: »

Of course the public were misled.
We were fed stories of rape/incest and FFA

The government and the Yes campaign were VERY clear before the referendum that the legislation would provide for abortion on demand up to 12 weeks.

Nobody was misled.

The majority isn't always right.

The majority was wrong in 1983 to bring in the 8th.

A lot of people said it was badly worded and was going to cause all sorts of problems, the pro-8th side said this would never happen, guess what, it did.
Who was misled then?

The majority of people voted for the 8th because their church told them to.
Thankfully our country is a lot less gullible and a lot more mature these days.

Imagine listening to a bunch of supposedly celibate men spout nonsense about sex and reproductive health?

It's a very slippery slope.

To what? Euthanasia? Hopefully. Although that doesn't need a referendum.

Hotblack Desiato

screamer wrote: »

I voted no, mainly because of the fact that it was just a blanket 12 week thing, and gives no choice to people who for example might have a foetus with downs to terminate as the testing is not available within a 12 week timeframe.

You wanted wider access to abortion than the proposed legislation would allow.

So you voted for no abortion at all.

There must be a parallel universe somewhere where that makes some sort of sense.

We were voting on the constitution, not the legislation, the legislation can be changed to make it stricter or looser. The constitution cannot be change without another referendum. So your vote was for women to keep travelling to the UK for abortions for decades to come, and for a few women in that period of time to die needlessly.


FWIW I agree with unlimited access to abortion up to 24 weeks. The faux handwringing over Down's is cringeworthy. I asked at the time would any No voters care to engage with the following scenario:

You are doing IVF, there are four viable embryos in the dish, they can implant three. Pre-implantation genetic screening shows one of them has Down's syndrome. Would you implant it?

They all went strangely silent.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

Society presently does have that attitude to bodily autonomy and nothing has collapsed.
In fact, I can imagine you’d be the first to protest if forced organ or blood donation was made a legal requirement.

Don't presume about me. You made a statement that went far beyond this one aspect. You said that no one should put another before their wants. Not needs but wants.

Society does not in general contain such selfish people.

And I absolutely agree with organ donation. You are dead, what do you care?

Hotblack Desiato

sabat wrote: »

They lied directly about it being free of charge and on demand. They also lied directly about doctors being coerced into performing abortions. They never mentioned that they planned to offer free abortions to women from Northern Ireland.

It is free, and on demand up to 12 weeks as promised.
Doctors are not coerced into performing abortions.
We do not offer free abortions to women from Northern Ireland.

Anything else you want cleared up?

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

Abortion in those cases is very sad but necessary.

So you agree we needed to repeal the 8th then.

/thread

Tork wrote: »

While I would never deny a woman the right to have an abortion here in Ireland, it would be better if the crisis pregnancy never happened in the first place.

We all agree on that, but you are proposing to slut-shame women by basically asking them the 21st century equivalent of the 1950s question "Why didn't you keep your knees together?"

6,666 terminations is a very high number, especially now that contraception is freely available.

It is not a high rate compared to other countries. And in the 1980s with a smaller population, we had a similar number of women having abortions in the UK giving Irish addresses, many others did not give Irish addresses. So our abortion rate is not high, and it has gone down not up.

Contraception is not freely available, many types need a regular prescription (€€€) and contraceptives are not cheap. Long term contraceptive devices are expensive. Female sterlisation costs a fortune, if you can even get it, lots of hospitals will refuse if you don't have "enough" children already or aren't old "enough".

the_syco

downinbigsmoke wrote: »

The number of abortions was 6,666 last year (2019). In 2017 (which was quite a high year) there were 3,061 abortions linked to Ireland in the UK. It seems to me (but maybe not you) the public have been misled. Would this have changed your vote?

The 6666 abortions; where did they take place, and do you have a link to where you got the figure from?

Hotblack Desiato

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

You said that no one should put another before their wants. Not needs but wants.

You are completely misrepresenting what they said.
The LAW should not force anyone to put someone else's right to life above their own.

Some people CHOOSE to do that, but they can equally well choose not to.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

Savita died because she & her husband were denied a termination. She was having a miscarriage, her baby was not going to survive anyway but despite her begging, they refused.

Instead she was told no, that this is a catholic country and was made sit there in hospital for over a WEEK with an open dilated cervix for until she inevitably developed sepsis.
An open dilated cervix has an extremely high risk of becoming infectious but she was left there regardless because her baby still had a very faint heartbeat.

When she unsurprisingly developed sepsis, she was still denied care until it got to the point where she was close to dying. The doctors wouldn’t intervene because of the faint fetal heartbeat.
Imagine her poor husband, who had just found out his baby daughter wasn’t going to make it, having to watch his wife slowly fade away and get gradually sicker while his pleas for help were ignored.
Her baby was never going to survive anyway. Savita’s death was completely unnecessary and avoidable and she should never have lost her life.

One of the independent doctors who spoke the inquest of her death said it was the worst, most severe case of sepsis that he had seen in his 30 years in medicine and agreed with other independent contributors that had she been granted an abortion when she requested one, she would never have died.

Hey husband as well eh? So sometimes the father does get a say. Odd stance by you, didn't you just state only the woman can decide?

The fact that one ignorant person made a stupid comment does not change the legal situation at the time. Had her medical care being at the expected level, she would have lived. Had the doctor realised the danger to get life, he could legally have performed an abortion.

I have already stated that I support abortion in such situations. I agree that the mothers life is more important but that's not equal to abortion on demand and it's not what my point was.

People voted yes, as replicated in this thread, in the belief that all abortion was illegal in Ireland and that was simple not true. That's the reality.

ohnonotgmail

the_syco wrote: »

The 6666 abortions; where did they take place, and do you have a link to where you got the figure from?

the 6666 number comes from a HSE report. the other number is questionable though. It only includes those who gave an irish address and it does not include those who ordered abortion pills over the internet. add those women in and you get very close to the figure of 6666

SusieBlue

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Don't presume about me. You made a statement that went far beyond this one aspect. You said that no one should put another before their wants. Not needs but wants.

Society does not in general contain such selfish people.

And I absolutely agree with organ donation. You are dead, what do you care?

Yes, no one should HAVE to. Most people voluntarily choose to, without it being a legal requirement. If it was a legal requirement then people would feel differently.

I’m talking about organ donation in the context of the donor being alive. Sure what’s a little bit of pain, suffering and discomfort when you could save a persons life? How would you feel if that was mandatory?

Hotblack Desiato

Don't forget all of the other countries Irish residents (and a good proportion of women in their 20s and 30s are not originally Irish) go to for abortions.

Why would, say, a French woman living in Ireland go to the UK and pay €1000 for an abortion when she can get one for free in France and have the support of her family and friends around her?

ohnonotgmail

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Hey husband as well eh? So sometimes the father does get a say.

The fact that one ignorant person made a stupid comment does not change the legal situation at the time. Had her medical care being at the expected level, she would have lived.

I have already stated that I support abortion in such situations but that situation is misused for the

if the 8th had not been in place she would be alive now.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

Yes, no one should HAVE to. Most people voluntarily choose to, without it being a legal requirement. If it was a legal requirement then people would feel differently.

I’m talking about organ donation in the context of the donor being alive. Sure what’s a little bit of pain, suffering and discomfort when you could save a persons life? How would you feel if that was mandatory?

Mandatory after I made the situation? Did I remove the person's kidney?

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if the 8th had not been in place she would be alive now.

Possible.

She was entitled to an abortion. She asked for an abortion. The abortion would have been legal. The midwife however, want the one making the decisions. It was her doctor who never claimed that he thought abortion was illegal. That wasn't his defence.

1 idiot made an incorrect comment that didn't reflect reality. Such a comment could still be made by someone that should know better.

SusieBlue

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Hey husband as well eh? So sometimes the father does get a say.

The fact that one ignorant person made a stupid comment does not change the legal situation at the time. Had her medical care being at the expected level, she would have lived.

I have already stated that I support abortion in such situations but that situation is misused for the

It wasn’t one stupid comment. She was denied medical intervention until her life was in danger because the doctors hands were tied because of the 8th.
The 8th said that Savita’s right to life of Savita was equal to that of her unborn baby, which meant they couldn’t intervene until Savita was literally dying.

When the 8th was originally voted in, experts warned that the legal grey area due to the wording of the amendment would cause confusion during medical emergencies, and they were right.

It also caused issues in a case where a young woman who was pronounced braindead after being severely injured in a car accident was kept on life support against the wishes of her husband and father because of her unborn child’s right to life.
The hospital were happy to keep this woman who was all but dead on life support for over 6 months as some sort of warped human incubator.
That’s absolutely barbaric to me. It was a stupid law that should never have been voted in in the first place.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

It wasn’t one stupid comment. She was denied medical intervention until her life was in danger because the doctors hands were tied because of the 8th.
The 8th said that Savita’s right to life of Savita was equal to that of her unborn baby, which meant they couldn’t intervene until Savita was literally dying.

When the 8th was originally voted in, experts warned that the legal grey area due to the wording of the amendment would cause confusion during medical emergencies, and they were right.

It also caused issues in a case where a young woman who was pronounced braindead after being severely injured in a car accident was kept on life support against the wishes of her husband and father because of her unborn child’s right to life.
The hospital were happy to keep this woman who was all but dead on life support for over 6 months as some sort of warped human incubator.
That’s absolutely barbaric to me. It was a stupid law that should never have been voted in in the first place.

The court had already ruled on the 8th in 1992. It had ruled that women can seek an abortion on health grounds. Again, the 8th was not mentioned by the doctor because he was absent from her care.

Again, not abortion on demand.

The second case is indeed gruesome and very sad. The loss of life is never a joyous event in my opinion. You are aware of course that this followed the 2013 act. The 1992 case and the court on this occasion ruled that the 8th did not apply in this situation.

Again, not denied an abortion as a result of the 8th

SusieBlue

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Possible.

She was entitled to an abortion. She asked for an abortion. The abortion would have been legal. The midwife however, want the one making the decisions. It was her doctor who never claimed that he thought abortion was illegal. That wasn't his defence.

1 idiot made an incorrect comment that didn't reflect reality. Such a comment could still be made by someone that should know better.

Experts have agreed that had she been granted an abortion, she would never have developed the sepsis and she would have lived.
And stop dismissing it as one incorrect comment, it was a medical decision taken by a professional that cost Savita her life.
The people who were supposed to rake care of her didn’t do that because they weren’t sure at what point they were allowed to intervene.
The law at the time literally specifically said the right to life of the child was equal to that of the mother, so anything done to the detriment of that child could land them in trouble.
This is why the 8th was bad news and this is one of the reasons we should be thankful it’s now gone.

SusieBlue

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Possible.

She was entitled to an abortion. She asked for an abortion. The abortion would have been legal. The midwife however, want the one making the decisions. It was her doctor who never claimed that he thought abortion was illegal. That wasn't his defence.

1 idiot made an incorrect comment that didn't reflect reality. Such a comment could still be made by someone that should know better.

Experts have agreed that had she been granted an abortion, she would never have developed the sepsis and she would have lived.
And stop dismissing it as one incorrect comment, it was a medical decision taken by a professional that cost Savita her life.
The people who were supposed to rake care of her didn’t do that because they weren’t sure at what point they were allowed to intervene.
The law at the time literally specifically said the right to life of the child was equal to that of the mother, so anything done to the detriment of that child could land them in trouble.
This is why the 8th was bad news and this is one of the reasons we should be thankful it’s now gone.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

Experts have agreed that had she been granted an abortion, she would never have developed the sepsis and she would have lived.
And stop dismissing it as one incorrect comment, it was a medical decision taken by a professional that cost Savita her life.
The people who were supposed to rake care of her didn’t do that because they weren’t sure at what point they were allowed to intervene.
The law at the time literally specifically said the right to life of the child was equal to that of the mother, so anything done to the detriment of that child could land them in trouble.
This is why the 8th was bad news and this is one of the reasons we should be thankful it’s now gone.

You are incorrect. The comment was made by a nurse, not the doctor in charge of her care.

There's numerous failings, read the actual report fully.

And again, the 1992 decision had already clarified the legal point. You keep ignoring that.