1216 packs of abortion pills seized in 2009

Nevyn · 28-10-2010 03:18AM

Seaneh wrote: »

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

Lollers

Are you serious, have you any idea how hard going the last trimester is?

Esp if you have been told the baby has developed abnormally and won't live
and this being ireland you are told tough shíte you have to go through with it until it dies insides you and starts to decay and then they will induce but before that you just have to hope your body either aborts it's self or that your will despite the flawed pregnancy kick start labour by it's self.

strobe · 28-10-2010 03:19AM

crayolastereo wrote: »

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

I get that Crayo, that's sort of where my confusion lies. I'm just wondering why it is used as an argument for abortion over adoption, specifically?

Seaneh · 28-10-2010 03:20AM

Thaedydal wrote: »

Lollers

Are you serious, have you any idea how hard going the last trimester is?

Esp if you have been told the baby has developed abnormally and won't live
and this being ireland you are told tough shíte you have to go through with it until it dies insides you and starts to decay and then they will induce but before that you just have to hope your body either aborts it's self or that your will despite the flawed pregnancy kick start labour by it's self.

see the post above yours.

Chuchoter · 28-10-2010 03:21AM

Einhard wrote: »

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?

I'm honestly not sure, your previous argument have thrown me, but at least in terms of the woman who might die, loads of people will care if she dies. Nobody knows the baby. One dies or both dies. The rape victim, I'm not sure. On the one hand, she will be miserable and its her body, but on the other hand she had six and a half months and the baby will feel everything, and doesn't really need her to live anyway. I don't know.

Nevyn · 28-10-2010 03:22AM

Seaneh wrote: »

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

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/abortion-pill-medication-abortion-4354.asp

What Is the Abortion Pill?

The abortion pill is a medicine that ends an early pregnancy. In general, it can be used up to 63 days — 9 weeks — after the first day of a woman's last period. Women who need an abortion and are more than 9 weeks pregnant can have an in-clinic abortion.

The name for "the abortion pill" is mifepristone. It was called RU-486 when it was being developed.

Seaneh wrote: »

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.

In the cases of the mother dying or the child being born dead then those conditions generally are not known or not critical until after the first trimester, or in some cases 3rd trimester.

Seaneh · 28-10-2010 03:23AM

Thaedydal wrote: »

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/abortion/abortion-pill-medication-abortion-4354.asp

In the cases of the mother dying or the child being born dead then those conditions generally are not known or not critical until after the first trimester, or in some cases 3rd trimester.

I am agreeing with you here, not arguing with you. I know these things stats. I can understand the argument for in these cases.

Chuchoter · 28-10-2010 03:26AM

strobe wrote: »

I get that Crayo, that's sort of where my confusion lies. I'm just wondering why it is used as an argument for abortion over adoption, specifically?

Because with adoption you have all these happy bonding emotions making you want to keep it, you lactate for weeks afterwards, but there is no baby. With an abortion, at least its gone. I don't know which one is easier.

I am going to bed now, because it is practically half 3 and way too late to be discussing abortion.:P Goodnight everyone, I shall return tomorrow!

Paddycrumlinman · 28-10-2010 03:27AM

I swear that some posters on this thread whom will remained unnamed are like callers to that Muppet Adrian Kennedy on the phone show who are placed onto a call just to wind people up to get a response.

strobe · 28-10-2010 03:30AM

Paddycrumlinman wrote: »

I swear that some posters on this thread whom will remained unnamed are like callers to that Muppet Adrian Kennedy on the phone show who are placed onto a call just to wind people up to get a response.

I don't know about that. I think this one has been quite reasonable all round compared to most of these threads.

scientific1982 · 28-10-2010 07:32AM

shebango wrote: »

Have you ever been in a situation where you had to make this decision? If not, then how do you know that your feelings on the subject wouldn't change if you were to be in this position?

If for example, you found yourself with no financial means to raise the child, would you still consider having it? How would you support it then, nevermind support yourself?

It is a truly awful act but I don't think there needs to be 'extreme circumstances' involved to warrant having one.

Considering that its human life, yes it should only be available under extreme circumstances. Financial motivations for getting an abortion doesnt wash with me, especially when we have social welfare in this country.

28-10-2010 09:45AM

Einhard wrote: »

Anyhoo, I don't believe that a foetus prior to birth is just cells. And I don't really believe that anyone thinks that.
...
I believe that a foetus has some intrinsic value and this should be acknowledged. However I don't believe that value is the same as that of a fully developed life form. From that, I'm against abortion in general, but would approve of them in cases where the life or wellbeing of the mother was at serious risk, and also in cases of rape and incest.

Why are you making a rape exception then?
Surely if it's about the foetus being more than just cells it's still more than just cells after rape? Or are you making an exception for the woman's mental distress?
In which case why not make an exception for woman having mental distress from the pregnancy?

28-10-2010 09:48AM

crayolastereo wrote: »

Because with adoption you have all these happy bonding emotions making you want to keep it, you lactate for weeks afterwards, but there is no baby. With an abortion, at least its gone. I don't know which one is easier.

I am going to bed now, because it is practically half 3 and way too late to be discussing abortion.:P Goodnight everyone, I shall return tomorrow!

The problem with comparing adoption and abortion is that adoption is an alternative to raising the child, abortion is the "alternative" to pregnancy itself. They answer two different things.
(I also wonder at the mentality of abandoning a child to care as the golden option in these arguments)

seaneh wrote:

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

...

Epic copypaste incoming:

Normal, frequent or expectable temporary side effects of pregnancy:

exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
nausea and vomiting (50% of women, first trimester)
heartburn and indigestion
constipation
weight gain
dizziness and light-headedness
bloating, swelling, fluid retention
hemmorhoids
abdominal cramps
yeast infections
congested, bloody nose
acne and mild skin disorders
skin discoloration (chloasma, face and abdomen)
mild to severe backache and strain
increased headaches
difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
increased urination and incontinence
bleeding gums
pica
breast pain and discharge
swelling of joints, leg cramps, joint pain
difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
inability to take regular medications
shortness of breath
higher blood pressure
hair loss
tendency to anemia
curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and
are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
extreme pain on delivery
hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period (exacerbated if a c-section -- major surgery -- is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to fully recover)

Normal, expectable, or frequent PERMANENT side effects of pregnancy:

stretch marks (worse in younger women)
loose skin
permanent weight gain or redistribution
abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
changes to breasts
varicose veins
scarring from episiotomy or c-section
other permanent aesthetic changes to the body (all of these are downplayed by women, because the culture values youth and beauty)
increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
Occasional complications and side effects:

spousal/partner abuse
hyperemesis gravidarum
temporary and permanent injury to back
severe scarring requiring later surgery (especially after additional pregnancies)
dropped (prolapsed) uterus (especially after additional pregnancies, and other pelvic floor weaknesses -- 11% of women, including cystocele, rectocele, and enterocele)
pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
gestational diabetes
placenta previa
anemia (which can be life-threatening)
thrombocytopenic purpura
severe cramping
embolism (blood clots)
medical disability requiring full bed rest (frequently ordered during part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother or baby)
diastasis recti, also torn abdominal muscles
mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
serious infection and disease (e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis)
hormonal imbalance
ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
hemorrhage and
numerous other complications of delivery
refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions (e.g. epilepsy is present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency of seizures)
severe post-partum depression and psychosis
research now indicates a possible link between ovarian cancer and female fertility treatments, including "egg harvesting" from infertile women and donors
research also now indicates correlations between lower breast cancer survival rates and proximity in time to onset of cancer of last pregnancy
research also indicates a correlation between having six or more pregnancies and a risk of coronary and cardiovascular disease

Less common (but serious) complications:
peripartum cardiomyopathy
cardiopulmonary arrest
magnesium toxicity
severe hypoxemia/acidosis
massive embolism
increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced cancer)
malignant arrhythmia
circulatory collapse
placental abruption
obstetric fistula

More permanent side effects:
future infertility
permanent disability
death.

Chuchoter · 28-10-2010 09:57AM

Seaneh wrote: »

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

No its not. You have to have an anterior cingulate to feel pain, which does not develop until week 26.

prinz · 28-10-2010 10:00AM

Illegal abortion pills seized by Customs. Dun dun dunnnnnnnnnn. Whatever will the think of next Batman.

philologos · 28-10-2010 10:26AM

Millicent wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, do you believe in contraception and/or the morning after pill? Still curious on my other question from before too.

I don't have any issues with contraceptives. Abstinence is more effective in preventing unplanned pregnancy obviously, but contraceptives are better than nothing.

I disagree with the MAP because it is an abortifacient, it does the same thing as any other procedure, that is denies the right to life to the unborn.

28-10-2010 10:30AM

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with the MAP because it is an abortifacient, .

No it isn't

philologos · 28-10-2010 10:32AM

Millicent wrote: »

How do you feel about these women who are so desperate that they are buying possibly dangerous drugs from the internet? Do you not believe that their right to safe medical treatment supersedes that of a foetus? (I know you consider a foetus as alive as you or I but I mean, would you not think it better to protect the health and therefore life of women who are going to do it anyway?)

1. I feel that they need adequate support. Support to be able to keep on going.

2. No. I believe all people have the right to live. Without life, all other rights are gone. It is only because you have been granted the right to live that you are deserving of any other right. I believe it is categorically wrong for us to take the life of the unborn with the exception of saving one live rather than losing two.

3. People will do it anyway? - It is in our power to continue to tackle unplanned pregnancy and encourage people to be a whole lot more careful. I don't believe that it's acceptable for conjugal rights to supersede the right to life personally.

bluewolf wrote: »

No it isn't

It destroys the fused zygote by stopping it from lining in the womb. Therefore, as I would see it is an abortifacient, just at the earliest possible stage.

shebango · 28-10-2010 12:17PM

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?

(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)

For what it's worth, I agree with you on this. I don't understand why a woman would wait 26 weeks to have an abortion. That makes me very uncomfortable.

ILA · 28-10-2010 12:23PM

The first step to improving this country would have been taken had they allowed these vital medicines through!

scientific1982 · 28-10-2010 12:29PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Why are you making a rape exception then?
Surely if it's about the foetus being more than just cells it's still more than just cells after rape? Or are you making an exception for the woman's mental distress?
In which case why not make an exception for woman having mental distress from the pregnancy?

Wouldnt that instance also take into consideration the welfare of the child. A birth as a result of a rape is definitely going to put a massive strain on the mother-child relationship.

Shenshen · 28-10-2010 12:43PM

Jakkass wrote: »

2. No. I believe all people have the right to live. Without life, all other rights are gone. It is only because you have been granted the right to live that you are deserving of any other right. I believe it is categorically wrong for us to take the life of the unborn with the exception of saving one live rather than losing two.

Do you believe that everybody has the right to live, even at the expense of another?

At the end of the day, a person's right to live ends at the body of another. Nobody here can be forced to donate blood or organs, no matter how many lives could be saved by it.
Yet a woman is expected to give up that right to her own body on behalf of something that may or may not become a person (I think the number of "natural" abortions is just short of 50%)?

Why do you think women should have fewer rights than children and men?

senordingdong · 28-10-2010 12:50PM

Well atleast illeagal pills have been stopped from entering the country.

philologos · 28-10-2010 12:52PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Do you believe that everybody has the right to live, even at the expense of another?

Carrying a child for nine months, is better than being dead forever as I would see it.

Shenshen wrote: »

At the end of the day, a person's right to live ends at the body of another. Nobody here can be forced to donate blood or organs, no matter how many lives could be saved by it.
Yet a woman is expected to give up that right to her own body on behalf of something that may or may not become a person (I think the number of "natural" abortions is just short of 50%)?

May or may not become a person. I guess that's where the difference comes in. I regard the child as a person from the get go. A less developed person than you or I admittedly, but a person nonetheless that will grow and develop to the point of birth.

Shenshen wrote: »

Why do you think women should have fewer rights than children and men?

I don't. I just don't think that it is right for one person to decide whether or not someone else should get the chance to live. I believe that these people should have the right to live as you or I do.

Edit: If it were just about the mother and her body, I'd be all for it. It isn't though, it's about someone elses life as well. Both rights have to be considered together, and the solution for me seems to provide as much for the mother without the denial of the right to life for the child.

Shenshen · 28-10-2010 01:13PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Carrying a child for nine months, is better than being dead forever as I would see it.

...

I don't. I just don't think that it is right for one person to decide whether or not someone else should get the chance to live. I believe that these people should have the right to live as you or I do.

Edit: If it were just about the mother and her body, I'd be all for it. It isn't though, it's about someone elses life as well. Both rights have to be considered together, and the solution for me seems to provide as much for the mother without the denial of the right to life for the child.

You decide just that every single day of your life, though, by either giving blood or not giving blood. By either carrying an organ donor card or not. You have the right to choose if somebody else lives with the help of your body or not.
Yet you deny women the exact same right....

philologos · 28-10-2010 01:23PM

It's not comparable in the slightest. There is a difference between not providing blood, and deliberately seeking out an procedure that will definitely kill someone. By not providing blood, no-one is saying that of certainty someone will die as a result. Of course, I'd advocate both organ & blood donation.

Shenshen · 28-10-2010 01:27PM

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not comparable in the slightest. There is a difference between not providing blood, and deliberately seeking out an procedure that will indefinitely kill someone. By not providing blood, no-one is saying that of certainty someone will die as a result. Of course, I'd advocate both organ & blood donation.

So because you can't ever know if not giving blood killed someone or not, it's ok to allow people to choose to do it or not?
But as soon as they know, it's no longer ok and they should be forced to?

philologos · 28-10-2010 01:37PM

People should be encouraged to do both. The difference is that the child has nowhere to develop apart from inside the mothers womb. If there was a mechanism where the child could healthily develop outside the womb the abortion issue wouldn't be a problem. Since this isn't the case, it isn't.

Until such a point where this is possible, I will oppose abortion-by-choice.

Indeed, I'd much rather than Government funding / State funding went into preventing unplanned pregnancies so that such a situation never arises than promoting abortions elsewhere or here if it became legal.

Einhard · 28-10-2010 01:38PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Why are you making a rape exception then?
Surely if it's about the foetus being more than just cells it's still more than just cells after rape? Or are you making an exception for the woman's mental distress?
In which case why not make an exception for woman having mental distress from the pregnancy?

I have actually. I think abortions should be provided when there is a serious risk to the health and wellbeing of the mother. And that includes the psychological wellbeing. Seriously, don't mean to be narky, but I have mentioned that two or three times already.

crayolastereo wrote: »

No its not. You have to have an anterior cingulate to feel pain, which does not develop until week 26.

But as I asked, do you believe that feeling pain equates to sentience? That the foetus is a clump of cells at 25 weeks and suddenly, hey presto, pain can be felt a week later, and we have a "human"?

ninjasurfer1 · 28-10-2010 01:46PM

Playing devil's advocate, and I'll probably get slaughtered for this, but there is yet to be a mention of a (potential) fathers rights.

Current situation:
If a woman decides to have the baby against his wishes, he has no choice and he gets landed with maintenance costs.

If a woman decides to get rid of the baby against his wishes, he has no input.

A bit unfair imho. Why not:

If a woman decides to have the baby against his wishes, he is absolved of any maintenance costs incurred by HER decision.

If a woman decides to get rid of the baby against his wishes, he should have an input.

Discuss...:-)

Einhard · 28-10-2010 01:49PM

ninjasurfer1 wrote: »

Playing devil's advocate, and I'll probably get slaughtered for this, but there is yet to be a mention of a (potential) fathers rights.

Current situation:
If a woman decides to have the baby against his wishes, he has no choice and he gets landed with maintenance costs.

If a woman decides to get rid of the baby against his wishes, he has no input.

A bit unfair imho. Why not:

If a woman decides to have the baby against his wishes, he is absolved of any maintenance costs incurred by HER decision.

If a woman decides to get rid of the baby against his wishes, he should have an input.

Discuss...:-)

What do you mean by the last point? What input should he have?

1216 packs of abortion pills seized in 2009

Comments