Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

cournioni

SusieBlue wrote: »

Yeah and as has already been explained several times, your idea of responsibility isn’t the only one or the correct one.
Women deserve compassion, dignity and respect and not to be shipped off to foreign healthcare systems. They are more important and valuable than the contents of their wombs.

Do you disagree with my idea of responsibility? Is it incorrect?

Of course women deserve compassion, dignity and respect and to be treated within their own countries healthcare systems.

Healthy unborn shouldn’t be treated any differently.

SusieBlue

oyvey wrote: »

As a side point, even if you consider an abortion as taking responsibility there are certain risks associated with abortion itself. So responsibility before conception is the ultimate form of responsibility in this case - no life aborted, no harmful side affects to the woman.

I don’t think anyone is advocating for abortion as an alternative to contraception, to be fair.

Sardonicat

KiKi III wrote: »

Personally I think pushing the angle that anyone who does not currently want to raise a new baby (including everyone from horny 17 year olds to married parents with two or three kids) should be entirely celibate is irresponsible.

You’re asking people to deny impulses that are at the heart of human nature.

It reminds me of what passed for sex education in the 1980s here. It's the same type of arguments that used to be made against using contraception - the purpose of sex is procreation and unless you are willing to take that on, abstain.

It's utterly ridiculous and was frequently preached by that dirty old hypocrite 'Fr' Michael Cleary. He was big on placing all the onus of responsibility on women too.

oyvey

KiKi III wrote: »

So? It makes no difference whatsoever to the foetus. Pregnancies end all the time; what difference does it make to you whether it was a woman’s body or her mind that made that choice?

Not a great comparison though. Comparing miscarriage and abortion is like comparing natural death and intentionally killing someone.

KiKi III

cournioni wrote: »

Do you disagree with my idea of responsibility? Is it incorrect?

Of course women deserve compassion, dignity and respect and to be treated within their own countries healthcare systems.

Healthy unborn shouldn’t be treated any differently.

A mother of four who is sexually active with her husband might become pregnant. Knowing they haven’t a penny to spare, she might very well see having an abortion as the most responsible option. She knows a pregnancy and a newborn will impact her ability to care for the children she already has, and mean they have to go without to finance it. She knows the stress will take a toll on her marriage. She knows it will impact her health.

Your view is that she should stop having sex with her husband altogether unless she is willing to have more children should their precautions fail.

KiKi III

oyvey wrote: »

Not a great comparison though. Comparing miscarriage and abortion is like comparing natural death and intentionally killing someone.

It’s exactly the same thing from the POV of a foetus.

SusieBlue

cournioni wrote: »

Do you disagree with my idea of responsibility? Is it incorrect?

Of course women deserve compassion, dignity and respect and to be treated within their own countries healthcare systems.

Healthy unborn shouldn’t be treated any differently.

It’s correct for you, I fully support you applying that principle to your own life and circumstances. But it’s not correct for everyone.

Yes they should be treated differently because by saying that, you are equating the worth of a woman to that a 12 week gestated embryo.
She is a living breathing person with family, friends, a job, a social life, memories, hopes and dreams for the future. To say she should be treated the same as a non sentient entity the size of a cherry is absolutely ridiculous and is exactly what was wrong with the 8th.
She is more important, and her needs and wants should come first unless she chooses otherwise.

Most women do put their babies first, btw. Most women are happy to make the sacrifice and go ahead even if the pregnancy wasn’t planned. The ones who can’t do that need to be supported.

cournioni

KiKi III wrote: »

A mother of four who is sexually active with her husband might become pregnant. Knowing they haven’t a penny to spare, she might very well see having an abortion as the most responsible option. She knows a pregnancy and a newborn will impact her ability to care for the children she already has, and mean they have to go without to finance it. She knows the stress will take a toll on her marriage. She knows it will impact her health.

Your view is that she should stop having sex with her husband altogether unless she is willing to have more children should their precautions fail.

There are other ways to be sexually active.

Seriously, if they can’t afford another child then they need to take the precautions to ensure that it doesn’t happen. Man could get the snip for example...

KiKi III

cournioni wrote: »

There are other ways to be sexually active.

Seriously, if they can’t afford another child then they need to take the precautions to ensure that it doesn’t happen. Man could get the snip for example...

I have at least one friend who was born to her parents after a vasectomy because it’s not failsafe.

cournioni

SusieBlue wrote: »

It’s correct for you, I fully support you applying that principle to your own life and circumstances. But it’s not correct for everyone.

Yes they should be treated differently because by saying that, you are equating the worth of a woman to that a 12 week gestated embryo.
She is a living breathing person with family, friends, a job, a social life, memories, hopes and dreams for the future. To say she should be treated the same as a non sentient entity the size of a cherry is absolutely ridiculous and is exactly what was wrong with the 8th.
She is more important, and her needs and wants should come first unless she chooses otherwise.

Most women do put their babies first, btw. Most women are happy to make the sacrifice and go ahead even if the pregnancy wasn’t planned. The ones who can’t do that need to be supported.

If it’s not correct for everyone that doesn’t want to have a child then they should review their own principles.

I completely disagree that they should be treated differently. Much like if a person kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach and kills the unborn, they should get the same sentence as they would for murdering an adult and then some for kicking the woman causing her harm. It is just as important.

I’m not suggesting that they don’t put their babies first, on the contrary, I think most women are amazing mothers.

cournioni

KiKi III wrote: »

I have at least one friend who was born to her parents after a vasectomy because it’s not failsafe.

I’d bet that was a shock. Hope your friend is doing well.

KiKi III

cournioni wrote: »

If it’s not correct for everyone that doesn’t want to have a child then they should review their own principles.

I’ve examined my own principles in detail on this and, while I think I’d probably continue with a pregnancy if I had one now, I’m glad the option not to is available to me should I decide I don’t want to.

I believe this option should be available to all women, for any reason, in the first trimester.

SusieBlue

KiKi III wrote: »

A mother of four who is sexually active with her husband might become pregnant. Knowing they haven’t a penny to spare, she might very well see having an abortion as the most responsible option. She knows a pregnancy and a newborn will impact her ability to care for the children she already has, and mean they have to go without to finance it. She knows the stress will take a toll on her marriage. She knows it will impact her health.

Your view is that she should stop having sex with her husband altogether unless she is willing to have more children should their precautions fail.

Pre-repeal when I was getting regular treatment for pre-cervical cancer, I had to do a pregnancy test at the beginning of each appointment because the treatment couldn’t go ahead if I was pregnant, because the fetus would have an equal right to life as me.
If I was pregnant, my treatment would have been stopped until I was no longer pregnant, whenever that may be, even if it meant the cells could turn cancerous in that time.

Myself and my ex were taking precautions agreed that should I accidentally become pregnant, we would probably take the risk and continue the pregnancy and hope I didn’t develop cancer.
I made friends with a married lady who was also a regular in the same clinic and she had 3 children under the age of 5.
She accidentally fell pregnant & ended up having to go to Liverpool for a termination because she couldn’t access one here, her treatment was cut off. Her existing children were her priority & they needed their mammy, and she wasn’t going to risk getting cancer and potentially dying.

You’d think that logically the needs of her existing children would outweigh that of any future ones, and that any risk should have been hers to take but it wasn’t the case.

KiKi III

SusieBlue wrote: »

Pre-repeal when I was getting regular treatment for pre-cervical cancer, I had to do a pregnancy test at the beginning of each appointment because the treatment couldn’t go ahead if I was pregnant, because the fetus would have an equal right to life as me.
If I was pregnant, my treatment would have been stopped until I was no longer pregnant, whenever that may be, even if it meant the cells could turn cancerous in that time.

Myself and my ex were taking precautions agreed that should I accidentally become pregnant, we would probably take the risk and continue the pregnancy and hope I didn’t develop cancer.
I made friends with a married lady who was also a regular in the same clinic and she had 3 children under the age of 5.
She accidentally fell pregnant & ended up having to go to Liverpool for a termination because she couldn’t access one here, her treatment was cut off. Her existing children were her priority & they needed their mammy, and she wasn’t going to risk getting cancer and potentially dying.

You’d think that logically the needs of her existing children would outweigh that of any future ones, and that any risk should have been hers to take but it wasn’t the case.

That is an absolutely horrendous situation for both of you. Imagine being denied life-saving cancer treatment because you’re pregnant... that is awful.

oyvey

SusieBlue wrote: »

Pre-repeal when I was getting regular treatment for pre-cervical cancer, I had to do a pregnancy test at the beginning of each appointment because the treatment couldn’t go ahead if I was pregnant, because the fetus would have an equal right to life as me.
If I was pregnant, my treatment would have been stopped until I was no longer pregnant, whenever that may be, even if it meant the cells could turn cancerous in that time.

Myself and my ex were taking precautions agreed that should I accidentally become pregnant, we would probably take the risk and continue the pregnancy and hope I didn’t develop cancer.
I made friends with a married lady who was also a regular in the same clinic and she had 3 children under the age of 5.
She accidentally fell pregnant & ended up having to go to Liverpool for a termination because she couldn’t access one here, her treatment was cut off. Her existing children were her priority & they needed their mammy, and she wasn’t going to risk getting cancer and potentially dying.

You’d think that logically the needs of her existing children would outweigh that of any future ones, and that any risk should have been hers to take but it wasn’t the case.

A medically necessary case can be made for those situations. The mothers life is at risk there. But those situations shouldn't be used to make a case for abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks.

cournioni

KiKi III wrote: »

I’ve examined my own principles in detail on this and, while I think I’d probably continue with a pregnancy if I had one now, I’m glad the option not to is available to me should I decide I don’t want to.

I believe this option should be available to all women, for any reason, in the first trimester.

It’s good that you would continue with pregnancy and that is the most responsible thing to do.

The option to abort on the other hand in my opinion should be reserved for medical emergencies and non consensual sex. It should in no way be something that can be used as a contraceptive measure. Given the statistics, it is clear that it is being used predominantly for the latter which is an indication of the society we live in today with lack of responsibility and accountability for their actions.

Life is not something that should be messed with, it is more important than our wants will ever be. The sooner people get over their selfish wants, the better our society will be.

KiKi III

cournioni wrote: »

It’s good that you would continue with pregnancy and that is the most responsible thing to do.

The option to abort on the other hand in my opinion should be reserved for medical emergencies and non consensual sex. It should in no way be something that can be used as a contraceptive measure. Given the statistics, it is clear that it is being used predominantly for the latter which is an indication of the society we live in today with lack of responsibility and accountability for their actions.

Life is not something that should be messed with, it is more important than our wants will ever be. The sooner people get over their selfish wants, the better our society will be.

As always, you’re more than entitled to hold this view. And what you do in your personal life is up to you.

Your insistence that everyone should see things your way and that only you know what’s best for society is troubling and narcissistic though.

cournioni

KiKi III wrote: »

As always, you’re more than entitled to hold this view. And what you do in your personal life is up to you.

Your insistence that everyone should see things your way and that only you know what’s best for society is troubling and narcissistic though.

Nothing is more troubling and narcissistic than unnecessarily taking the life of a healthy unborn away from them for personal gain. Regardless of what you think of my views.

SusieBlue

oyvey wrote: »

A medically necessary case can be made for those situations. The mothers life is at risk there. But those situations shouldn't be used to make a case for abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks.

Tell that to Michelle Harte, she accidentally fell pregnant while going through cancer treatment in 2010 and the CUMH ethics committee denied her an abortion even though the treatment was the only thing keeping the poor woman alive.
Her gynaecologist recommended she be given a termination but the ethics board went above her head and denied the request because it was in breach of the 8th amendment.

Upon discovering she was pregnant, it took her over a month to organise a passport and gather the funds to go to the UK, meaning she was weeks without her medication at that point.
She eventually managed to have a termination but her cancer turned terminal and she died a few months later.
She was a mother to a 9 year old son who is now without a mam.
Coming off her medication is a risk only she should have been allowed take, but the choice was made for her and it ended up causing her cancer to go terminal.

Same thing happened to Sheila Hodgers, that poor lady died screaming in agony, they wouldn’t even give her pain management for fear it would impact her baby even though the woman was riddled in cancer, it was in her bones, her spine, her brain, it was everywhere.

KiKi III

cournioni wrote: »

Nothing is more troubling and narcissistic than unnecessarily taking the life of a healthy unborn away from them for personal gain. Regardless of what you think of my views.

You can keep preaching as long as you want. And your posts really do come across as though they’re being delivered from a pulpit.

You’ll never know what it feels like to be pregnant; whether that’s full of excitement or the opposite.

cournioni

SusieBlue wrote: »

Tell that to Michelle Harte, she accidentally fell pregnant while going through cancer treatment in 2010 and the CUMH ethics committee denied her an abortion even though the treatment was the only thing keeping the poor woman alive.
Her gynaecologist recommended she be given a termination but the ethics board went above her head and denied the request because it was in breach of the 8th amendment.

Upon discovering she was pregnant, it took her over a month to organise a passport and gather the funds to go to the UK, meaning she was weeks without her medication at that point.
She eventually managed to have a termination but her cancer turned terminal and she died a few months later.
She was a mother to a 9 year old son who is now without a mam.
Coming off her medication is a risk only she should have been allowed take, but the choice was made for her and it ended up causing her cancer to go terminal.

Is that not more of an issue of ineptness from the committee? Nobody here is arguing against a medically required abortion.

oyvey

KiKi III wrote: »

As always, you’re more than entitled to hold this view. And what you do in your personal life is up to you.

Your insistence that everyone should see things your way and that only you know what’s best for society is troubling and narcissistic though.

That's very unfair. Even if you disagree with the view that the unborn is a life like any of us, you should at least be able to acknowledge that if someone does believe that then they believe that abortion is essentially murder and they're not being narcissistic when making that argument. Character assassination is uncalled for.

KiKi III

oyvey wrote: »

That's very unfair. Even if you disagree with the view that the unborn is a life like any of us, you should at least be able to acknowledge that if someone does believe that then they believe that abortion is essentially murder and they're not being narcissistic when making that argument.

I’m fine with anyone holding their own views and applying them in their own personal lives. I’ve said that more than once; if you don’t ever want an abortion, don’t get one.

When you’re trying to present your interpretation of responsibility as the only correct one, that is deeply narcissistic.

SusieBlue

cournioni wrote: »

Is that not more of an issue of ineptness from the committee? Nobody here is arguing against a medically required abortion.

When you allow abortion up till 12 weeks at a woman’s discretion you remove the need for committees to even need to make a decision in the first place.
The only person who should get a say is the person who is taking the risk and the person who will have to live with the consequences.

mcsean2163

This all went over my head. There were loads of women in our area d8 really delighted about repeal and having champagne parties etc to celebrate when it was passed.

To me, an abortion would be really sad. Maybe it's for the best but I couldn't imagine anyone celebrating an abortion they just went through, maybe I'm naive. 6,666 seems like a lot of abortions given so many try so hard to get pregnant.

I don't really understand it, I don't think it's a man thing, I love our kids etc. Maybe something to do with being a lonely child?

Does anyone know if people celebrate when they have an abortion? Also, was anyone celebrating the 6666 abortions?

SusieBlue

mcsean2163 wrote: »

This all went over my head. There were loads of women in our area d8 really delighted about repeal and having champagne parties etc to celebrate when it was passed.

To me, an abortion would be really sad. Maybe it's for the best but I couldn't imagine anyone celebrating an abortion they just went through, maybe I'm naive. 6,666 seems like a lot of abortions given so many try so hard to get pregnant.

I don't really understand it, I don't think it's a man thing, I love our kids etc. Maybe something to do with being a lonely child?

Does anyone know if people celebrate when they have an abortion? Also, was anyone celebrating the 6666 abortions?

People weren’t celebrating abortions. They were celebrating the removal of a dangerous, destructive law that hurt a lot of women & families and the introduction of choice for women.

KiKi III

mcsean2163 wrote: »

This all went over my head. There were loads of women in our area d8 really delighted about repeal and having champagne parties etc to celebrate when it was passed.

To me, an abortion would be really sad. Maybe it's for the best but I couldn't imagine anyone celebrating an abortion they just went through, maybe I'm naive. 6,666 seems like a lot of abortions given so many try so hard to get pregnant.

I don't really understand it, I don't think it's a man thing, I love our kids etc. Maybe something to do with being a lonely child?

Does anyone know if people celebrate when they have an abortion? Also, was anyone celebrating the 6666 abortions?

I have never heard of anyone celebrating an abortion, nor did we celebrate abortion after the referendum. We celebrated draconian legislation being repealed and our hard work campaigning paying off.

cournioni

KiKi III wrote: »

You can keep preaching as long as you want. And your posts really do come across as though they’re being delivered from a pulpit.

You’ll never know what it feels like to be pregnant; whether that’s full of excitement or the opposite.

You don’t have to be delivering anything from a pulpit to know that killing is wrong... and I did say regardless of what you think of my views, but whatever you think yourself.

That would be natural enough, being a man and all. Not entirely sure what your point is here though.

KiKi III

cournioni wrote: »

You don’t have to be delivering anything from a pulpit to know that killing is wrong... and I did say regardless of what you think of my views, but whatever you think yourself.

That would be natural enough, being a man and all. Not entirely sure what your point is here though.

My point is you’ll never have to be in the situation where you need to make a decision on a pregnancy so you really have no idea what you’d do.

It’s easy to stick to your principles when it’s all hypothetical.

gmisk

mcsean2163 wrote: »

This all went over my head. There were loads of women in our area d8 really delighted about repeal and having champagne parties etc to celebrate when it was passed.

To me, an abortion would be really sad. Maybe it's for the best but I couldn't imagine anyone celebrating an abortion they just went through, maybe I'm naive. 6,666 seems like a lot of abortions given so many try so hard to get pregnant.

I don't really understand it, I don't think it's a man thing, I love our kids etc. Maybe something to do with being a lonely child?

Does anyone know if people celebrate when they have an abortion? Also, was anyone celebrating the 6666 abortions?

I think the posts above me explain it far better than I ever could.

I am a gay man so it's not something that would effect me. But I thought about my niece etc if she was in a position where she had to make a really immensely difficult decision about something like an abortion, it should be up to her. I would recommend the in her shoes Facebook page, I think real stories help you to see why it needed to be repealed.

I had friends who campaigned and I live in D8 as well, definitely no champagne parties, some tears of relief were about the height of it.