1216 packs of abortion pills seized in 2009

Nevyn · 28-10-2010 02:35AM

I know someone who did give the baby up for adoption, she was called unnatural by her family for doing so, that she would have been less of a monster if she had an abortion.
The family also tried to stop the adoption and had to be removed from the hospital by security as they kept trying to come into the labour ward and trying to see the baby and to lay claim to it.

strobe · 28-10-2010 02:36AM

Jakkass wrote: »

By the by, in comparison to other countries our abortion rate is quite low. For example I think it's something like 4,000 annually, if we are to compare this with Wales which has a similar population it is 8,000 there.

Jakkass wrote: »

Low numbers of abortions => good as I would see it, as less lives are destroyed, and indeed more children have the opportunity to experience life as you or I do.

Just to address this point. The number of Irish women to seek abortions last year according to the IFPA was 5585.

Now if we consider that 1200 packs of abortion pills were seized in this country that year, and take into account that obviously the Gardai do not seize all illegal drugs that enter the country and use the Gardai's own ludicrously generous estimate that they get 1 in ten illegal drugs coming into the country. That means there would be roughly 10800 packs of abortion pills that they missed.

If only a third of these were used that would push the number of Irish abortions up to about 9,000 for these pills and abortions carried out in the UK combined. If you factor in the fact that these pills are not the only medications or procedures that women might use for illegal abortions than that figure could be higher again.

Now the above takes some conjecture on my part. I have absolutely no idea how common illegal abortions are in Ireland, with the use of these pills or other methods. But in general illegal drugs and in particular illegal pharmaceuticals are imported to meet an existing demand, not imported with the hope of creating a demand for the supply.

Basically the conclusion I'm drawing is that while Ireland's stance on abortion quite clearly does reduce the number of legal abortions carried out in the UK, when compared to Wales, it is something of a stretch to conclude it significantly, or at all, reduces the amount of abortions being carried out by women in Ireland.

=========================================================

Just to clarify. The above isn't meant to be an argument for or against the legalization of abortion in Ireland, I'm in the undecided camp which I think in a lot of situations is the hardest to be in, I am just questioning whether or not the prohibition of it actually has any effect on the number of abortions.

oompaloompa · 28-10-2010 02:38AM

Seaneh wrote: »

So why do they have abortions if they have nothing to worry about socially or healthwise by having the child? If the argument is truly that they can't look after the child themselves then give the child to someone who can. If they just don't want to have the child because it's inconvenient for them, then boo-fricken-hoo, tough luck.

That's a very simplistic view. There aren't many who have abortions because it's simply inconvenient. There are several factors involved.

Also can't be said that all women have nothing to worry about socially. In some cases, sure... but some families just don't work like that. Sometimes it would destroy relationships and cause endless heart ache to others to continue with the pregnancy. It's a rare occasion that it would only affect the life of the expectant mother.

People on here may not agree with abortion, but rest assured it is not the easy option for women. It is traumatic, stressful, painful and it's bloody hard to get over; add complications of the procedure and a lack of support on to that and you have a pure nightmare for the woman.

Abortion is never the easy option, and nobody has the right to judge what a women decides for her body/life.

Seaneh · 28-10-2010 02:38AM

Millicent wrote: »

No it's not. Calm down there. You still haven't answered the (very reasonable question) I asked you about the care given to the women who will do it anyway.

Counseling, education, proper support and it wouldn't be an issue. Preventions is better than a "cure". And where prevention isn't possible, they should be advised about adoption or similar.

When It comes to stuff like rape, incest or a pregnancy where it is clear that the mother will die if the child is carried to term, then there is a case for an argument but otherwise, in my opinion, if you have an unplanned pregnancy and you can't look after/don't want to look after the child yourself, there are a lot of other options besides abortion and they should be offered in all cases.

Chuchoter · 28-10-2010 02:39AM

shebango wrote: »

Sweet jesus, that's absolutely awful. Poor girl.:(

Exactly, and I don't know if anyone (argh I sound stupid bringing this up) watches teen mom/16 and pregnant, but the couple, I think it was Catelynn and Tyler, who gave up there baby, were basically rejected by their family over it.

Paddycrumlinman · 28-10-2010 02:39AM

SugarHigh wrote: »

Do you really not understand why these pills being seized is a good thing. Using them is dangerous because a trained Dr in this country wouldn't go near them and you have no idea where they come from since they aren't regulated.

The simple fact is that these drugs are being seized at Customs. These demo straight there is demand for such drugs which means people require abortions for what ever reason. There is a demand, why not help these people make rational decisions and help them reach these decisions rather than jump on the boat.

Nevyn · 28-10-2010 02:41AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Counseling, education, proper support and it wouldn't be an issue. Preventions is better than a "cure". And where prevention isn't possible, they should be advised about adoption or similar.

When It comes to stuff like rape, incest or a pregnancy where it is clear that the mother will die if the child is carried to term, then there is a case for an argument but otherwise, in my opinion, if you have an unplanned pregnancy and you can't look after/don't want to look after the child yourself, there are a lot of other options besides abortion and they should be offered in all cases.

Dude they are offered, every women here to seeks crises pregnancy counselling which they need to get a referral to a clinic in the UK gets informed of all the options and the supports.

Millicent · 28-10-2010 02:41AM

Seaneh wrote: »

Counseling, education, proper support and it wouldn't be an issue. Preventions is better than a "cure". And where prevention isn't possible, they should be advised about adoption or similar.

When It comes to stuff like rape, incest or a pregnancy where it is clear that the mother will die if the child is carried to term, then there is a case for an argument but otherwise, in my opinion, if you have an unplanned pregnancy and you can't look after/don't want to look after the child yourself, there are a lot of other options besides abortion and they should be offered in all cases.

You're avoiding the question here. Counselling, education, proper support etc, are fantastic ideas and should be offered. However, that doesn't change the fact that women, even if you manage to reduce the numbers through those measures in the future, will still have abortions, even if illegal, possibly at the risk of their own health. Shouldn't these women be taken care of if you cannot possibly change their minds?

Seaneh · 28-10-2010 02:45AM

Thaedydal wrote: »

Dude they are offered, every women here to seeks crises pregnancy counselling which they need to get a referral to a clinic in the UK gets informed of all the options and the supports.

ok. Lets go ahead and say we legalise abortion, what would you recommend the cut off point me? at what stage do you think it's no longer acceptable to have an abortion if it's not going to affect anyone besides the mother (ie. if the baby will be born healthy and the mother will have no physical ill effect)?

Question applies to the poster above also.

Chuchoter · 28-10-2010 02:48AM

Seaneh wrote: »

ok. Lets go ahead and say we legalise abortion, what would you recommend the cut off point me? at what stage do you think it's no longer acceptable to have an abortion if it's not going to affect anyone besides the mother (ie. if the baby will be born healthy and the mother will have no physical ill effect)?

Question applies to the poster above also.

We went through this, no-one agrees with late terms abortion.
Personally I put it at 26 weeks, just before an infant can feel pain and when it has a 50/50 chance of surviving outside the womb.

Millicent · 28-10-2010 02:49AM

Seaneh wrote: »

ok. Lets go ahead and say we legalise abortion, what would you recommend the cut off point me? at what stage do you think it's no longer acceptable to have an abortion if it's not going to affect anyone besides the mother (ie. if the baby will be born healthy and the mother will have no physical ill effect)?

Question applies to the poster above also.

I've already said, before the point of a pain threshold. I've also said that I do not agree with late term abortions. I think if you haven't availed of an abortion before then, it's unreasonable to seek one when you are 6 months gone. I would probably say around the three to four month mark, five at the latest.

And just to reiterate, do you not think the women who will do it anyway deserve decent care?

Einhard · 28-10-2010 02:51AM

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

Since you ask, yes, I was being antagonistic but only because you invited it.

I invited it it by taking exception to being characterised as a fascict? Or because I have the temerity to have a contrary opinion?

I understood your analogy, I also feel you're mad to compare murder and the death penalty to abortion but then that is just my opinion which I am entitled to just as you are yours.

Nobody's denying you your opinion, and nobody, except you, has resorted to personal abuse in this debate. I suggest you need to grow up and understand that having a differing viewpoint doesn't warrant ad hominem attack.

Good luck winning this thread by the way.
Carry on.

It's not about winning.
Grow up.

Incidentally, are you serious that understood the

, and my point, yet still deliberately chose to misrepresent them, purely to have a go? Wow. Says it all really.

Seaneh · 28-10-2010 02:52AM

crayolastereo wrote: »

We went through this, no-one agrees with late terms abortion.
Personally I put it at 26 weeks, just before an infant can feel pain and when it has a 50/50 chance of surviving outside the womb.

26 weeks?!?!!

At 26 weeks in this day and age, there is FAR MORE than a 50/50 chance the child will survive outside thew womb. It's between 80 and 90%!

At 22 weeks there is 10% survival rate.
Even at 18 weeks babies are aborted alive and have to be "dispatched".

Also, the pain threshold is 20 weeks, not 26.

Einhard · 28-10-2010 02:55AM

Millicent wrote: »

I've already said, before the point of a pain threshold. I've also said that I do not agree with late term abortions. I think if you haven't availed of an abortion before then, it's unreasonable to seek one when you are 6 months gone. I would probably say around the three to four month mark, five at the latest.

And just to reiterate, do you not think the women who will do it anyway deserve decent care?

I thought you were going to bed!!:D

In fairness though, there are people on the pro-abortion side who claim that abortion should be available whatever the stage of foetal development. Indeed, some here have claimed that a foetus is nothing more than just a clump of cells.

Also, how does pain equate sentience? I know where you're coming from, in that you wouldn't wish to inflict pain on the foetus, but do you believe that, once it is capable of suffering pain, it suddenly becomes "human"?

Seaneh · 28-10-2010 02:57AM

Millicent wrote: »

I've already said, before the point of a pain threshold. I've also said that I do not agree with late term abortions. I think if you haven't availed of an abortion before then, it's unreasonable to seek one when you are 6 months gone. I would probably say around the three to four month mark, five at the latest.

And just to reiterate, do you not think the women who will do it anyway deserve decent care?

I don't believe people have to right to end the life of another at all. I don't believe they should be given the option. Enabling them to do so legitimizes and I can't agree with that.

bronte · 28-10-2010 02:59AM

shebango wrote: »

I'm assuming you're a bloke.

Imagine for one second having to carry a child in your womb, feel it kick, watch it grow etc, knowing all the while that you have to give it up after nine months. Not because you want to but because you don't have the means to give it a good quality of life.

Adoption is a very wonderful thing and I commend any woman who has chosen this path for their child. But personally, I would not be able to carry a child to term, knowing that i'd have to give it up once it's born.

Does the psychological impact of that on the woman not strike you at all? Boo fricken hoo? Seriously? I find your attitude appaling, quite frankly.

Thank you.
Why do people cry adoption the whole time and not bloody consider this?
You might feel differently if faced with it.

Chuchoter · 28-10-2010 03:00AM

Seaneh wrote: »

26 weeks?!?!!

At 26 weeks in this day and age, there is FAR MORE than a 50/50 chance the child will survive outside thew womb. It's between 80 and 90%!

At 22 weeks there is 10% survival rate.
Even at 18 weeks babies are aborted alive and have to be "dispatched".

Going by this chart, as its the best one I can find:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Prenatal_development_table.svg
26 weeks seems reasonable. I am willing to be corrected on that, but whenever the 50/50 mark is reached and there is no pain involved. I think pain is a good thing to go by because it is the most basic level of response. 26 weeks is when you get serious brain development. I am big into brain development.

Well 18 weeks, sure why not deliver them then and see what happens? Dispense with all this pregnancy lark?

evercloserunion · 28-10-2010 03:01AM

Millicent wrote: »

Why has nobody commented on the point I keep making? Women will have abortions whether they are legal or not and may seriously injure or kill themselves to do so. Are pro-life people and opponents of readily available abortion happy to see this happen by pushing abortion into the background? Neither the child nor the mother is protected in such instances and it's a lose/lose situation. Whether you agree with abortion or not, isn't it better to protect the women who will do it anyway or order potentially dangerous abortion pills from the internet, without or without legalisation?

That's a valid point but I feel uncomfortable arguing that something should be legalised purely because people do it anyway, and not because criminalisation is wrong. That shifts the focus of the argument to the efficacy of criminalisation and enforcement, when in fact, as I see it, a woman in that situation should have a right to terminate pregnancy if she so wishes. Arguing that abortion should be legalised regardless of whether it is right or wrong does little to remove the social stigma attached to abortion.

But as I said, your point is valid and the dangers facing women who decide to abort in this country are unjustifiable. It's just that, in general, if someone argued that we should repeal a particular law in order to better protect those who violate the law, I would not necessarily be convinced without more.

I hope that makes sense, it is late.

Einhard · 28-10-2010 03:02AM

Millicent wrote: »

Why has nobody commented on the point I keep making? Women will have abortions whether they are legal or not and may seriously injure or kill themselves to do so. Are pro-life people and opponents of readily available abortion happy to see this happen by pushing abortion into the background? Neither the child nor the mother is protected in such instances and it's a lose/lose situation. Whether you agree with abortion or not, isn't it better to protect the women who will do it anyway or order potentially dangerous abortion pills from the internet, without or without legalisation?

I did address that point. I don't think that laws should be revised or repealed just because people find ways to get around them. Heroin and crack would be legalised on that basis.

Einhard · 28-10-2010 03:04AM

Thaedydal wrote: »

I know someone who did give the baby up for adoption, she was called unnatural by her family for doing so, that she would have been less of a monster if she had an abortion.
The family also tried to stop the adoption and had to be removed from the hospital by security as they kept trying to come into the labour ward and trying to see the baby and to lay claim to it.

I think the family were the monsters there TBH.

Seaneh · 28-10-2010 03:05AM

crayolastereo wrote: »

Going by this chart, as its the best one I can find:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Prenatal_development_table.svg
26 weeks seems reasonable. I am willing to be corrected on that, but whenever the 50/50 mark is reached and there is no pain involved. I think pain is a good thing to go by because it is the most basic level of response. 26 weeks is when you get serious brain development. I am big into brain development.

Well 18 weeks, sure why not deliver them then and see what happens? Dispense with all this pregnancy lark?

The 50/50 mark is reached long after there is pain involved.

If a woman can last to 26 weeks carrying a baby why the hell can't she suck up the last 12?

Einhard · 28-10-2010 03:07AM

crayolastereo wrote: »

We went through this, no-one agrees with late terms abortion.
Personally I put it at 26 weeks, just before an infant can feel pain and when it has a 50/50 chance of surviving outside the womb.

Ok, fair enough. But yourself and Millicent have advocated that abortion should be legal because women are going to do it anyway, and potentially put themselves at risk in the process.

If the limit is 26 weeks, there will be women beyond that point who will wish to terminate the pregnancy, and will do so anyway, potentially putting themselves at risk in the process. So, in order for that particular argument to have validity, all abortions would have to be legalised, no matter the stage of the pregnancy.

Chuchoter · 28-10-2010 03:09AM

Seaneh wrote: »

The 50/50 mark is reached long after there is pain involved.

If a woman can last to 26 weeks carrying a baby why the hell can't she suck up the last 12?

Ok well, first you were telling us that at 26 weeks the chances of it living were around 90%, meaning 50/50 is about 24, but pain is still definitely not until 26 so that makes no sense.

This argument is not about 'sucking it up' as you put it.

Chuchoter · 28-10-2010 03:11AM

Einhard wrote: »

Ok, fair enough. But yourself and Millicent have advocated that abortion should be legal because women are going to do it anyway, and potentially put themselves at risk in the process.

If the limit is 26 weeks, there will be women beyond that point who will wish to terminate the pregnancy, and will do so anyway, potentially putting themselves at risk in the process. So, in order for that particular argument to have validity, all abortions would have to be legalised, no matter the stage of the pregnancy.

Now hang on, I never said we should legalize abortion purely because women will do it anyway. I have several other arguments, the people will do it anyway is an unavoidable technicality and a bad thing to base laws on. After 26 weeks I think the fetus and mother have equal rights, so at that point she is in the wrong. Both people at this point deserve their bodies respected because both people are aware their bodies exist, before this, only the mother knew her body existed.

strobe · 28-10-2010 03:13AM

shebango wrote: »

I'm assuming you're a bloke.

Imagine for one second having to carry a child in your womb, feel it kick, watch it grow etc, knowing all the while that you have to give it up after nine months. Not because you want to but because you don't have the means to give it a good quality of life.

Adoption is a very wonderful thing and I commend any woman who has chosen this path for their child. But personally, I would not be able to carry a child to term, knowing that i'd have to give it up once it's born.

Does the psychological impact of that on the woman not strike you at all? Boo fricken hoo? Seriously? I find your attitude appaling, quite frankly.

bronte wrote: »

Thank you.
Why do people cry adoption the whole time and not bloody consider this?
You might feel differently if faced with it.

I'm sorry I just don't comprehend the above argument. The number 26 weeks was raised as a reasonable cut off for abortions. If a woman could not carry the child 38 weeks, feeling it kick, watching it grow etc and give it up for adoption how is it different watching it grow for 26 weeks and then aborting?

It's not a fact that I haven't consider the psychological impact of giving a child up for abortion, it's just that I can't separate it from the psychological impact of abortion.

Yes, before you ask, I am a man. Maybe this is why I can't comprehend the above argument, maybe someone could try and explain it to me?

(Just for the record Shebango's post wasn't directed at me so I wasn't the one saying "boo frickin hoo" or with the appaling attitude)

Nevyn · 28-10-2010 03:14AM

Seaneh wrote: »

ok. Lets go ahead and say we legalise abortion, what would you recommend the cut off point me? at what stage do you think it's no longer acceptable to have an abortion if it's not going to affect anyone besides the mother (ie. if the baby will be born healthy and the mother will have no physical ill effect)?

Question applies to the poster above also.

I would be for legalising the abortion pill(and bringing in proper education and free contraception to everyone under the age of 25) and making that the cut of point. The surgical abortions should only be done in the case where the foetus develops abnormally like in the D case (with out a brain stem).

Seaneh · 28-10-2010 03:16AM

crayolastereo wrote: »

Ok well, first you were telling us that at 26 weeks the chances of it living were around 90%, meaning 50/50 is about 24, but pain is still definitely not until 26 so that makes no sense.

This argument is not about 'sucking it up' as you put it.

Pain is felt at 20 weeks . 50/50 survival rate is between 24 and 25 weeks.

Einhard · 28-10-2010 03:16AM

crayolastereo wrote: »

Now hang on, I never said we should legalize abortion purely because women will do it anyway. I have several other arguments, the people will do it anyway is an unavoidable technicality and a bad thing to base laws on. After 26 weeks I think the fetus and mother have equal rights, so at that point she is in the wrong.

I know that's not what you're hanging your argument on, but it is part of your argument, and one that is often put forward.
Also, it's interesting that you feel the foetus achieves equal rights with the mother at 26 months, which is actually further than I'd go. What if the mother was a rape victim for example, or would die giving birth to the child? Would this equality of status still apply?

Chuchoter · 28-10-2010 03:17AM

strobe wrote: »

I'm sorry I just don't comprehend the above argument. The number 26 weeks was raised as a reasonable cut off for abortions. If a woman could not carry the child 38 weeks, feeling it kick, watching it grow etc and give it up for adoption how is it different watching it grow for 26 weeks and then aborting?

It's not a fact that I haven't consider the psychological impact of giving a child up for abortion, it's just that I can't separate it from the psychological impact of abortion.

Yes, before you ask, I am a man. Maybe this is why I can't comprehend the above argument, maybe someone could try and explain it to me?

Nobody said both things couldn't crush you emotionally in the process.

Seaneh · 28-10-2010 03:17AM

Thaedydal wrote: »

I would be for legalising the abortion pill(and bringing in proper education and free contraception to everyone under the age of 25) and making that the cut of point. The surgical abortions should only be done in the case where the foetus develops abnormally like in the D case (with out a brain stem).

Correct me if I am wrong, but this pill work up to about 10 weeks, right?

Like I said before, I can see a case and argument for abortion where the case is rape/incest/child will be born dead/mother will die.

1216 packs of abortion pills seized in 2009

Comments