Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion Discussion
Options
Comments
-
Loafing Oaf wrote: »It's a shame condescension wasn't an Olympic sport, you'd be a shoe-in for a gold medal.
I'm just pointing out that given the context in which the referendums were held, it would be ludicrously disingenuous to pretend their purpose was not to legally guarantee the right to travel to another country for abortion and to access information on abortion services in other countries.
Yeah, there seems to be this rewriting of rewriting by quite a few anti-choice groups which claims that people voted for the right to travel because they were afraid they wouldn't be able to go to Magaluff on their holliers any more!!
Mind, the same poster here who claims that was the case doesn't seem to grasp the concept of the paraphrase either - he seems to believe that if the word "remove" doesn't actually appear in a law, then it has to be a law which increases rights! (He thinks the failed 12th amendment would have liberalized the abortion law. Honest!)0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 26391
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/08/25/pure-hatstand/Bernie Smith of Pro-Life group, Precious Life is interviewed in today’s Belfast Telegraph.
Q. Do you not think you are adding to a vulnerable woman’s distress by trying to make her feel guilty about her choice?
A. Let’s turn this around and look at child abuse. If there was a child abuser in a community is that not the responsibility of people in society to highlight how horrible child abuse is. Abortion is the ultimate child abuse and for a woman in that situation it couldn’t be made worse because there is nothing worse for a woman than to have an abortion. I have sat with women who were suicidal because they had an abortion because there was nobody to say to them beforehand there was another way.
Q. What about the young girl or woman who is suicidal because she doesn’t want to go through with the pregnancy?
A. Well what do we do when people are suicidal? Take a woman who has just given birth and she has postnatal depression. I suffered from severe postnatal depression and like many women I needed someone to help me through that difficult stage. Would eliminating that baby, killing that baby have prevented me from being suicidal? I needed medical intervention. In some cases women who are suicidal during pregnancy may even need to be institutionalised in some cases.
Q. Are you saying a woman who is feeling suicidal about their pregnancy and doesn’t want to continue with the pregnancy should be institutionalised?
A. Well if her life is at risk.
Q. So you would do this against her will?
A. Not against her will, but if someone’s life is in danger we immediately have to offer medical intervention. Abortion does not eliminate suicidal thoughts. Abortion causes suicidal thoughts. I don’t believe aborting a child for any reason is in anyway beneficial to that child.
Q. What about the young girl in the republic, raped and suicidal. Was it not cruel to force her to continue with her pregnancy?
A. Well how much more cruel would it have been to rip that child from her womb. A loving society offers support and help to women. If she was suicidal she should have received immediate psychiatric care and sometimes that involves medical intervention that would include hospitalisation and the proper medication. The right decision was made in this case not to abort the baby. She’ll never regret giving birth to her baby but she would have regretted an abortion.0 -
Bernie claims "abortion causes suicidal thoughts"?In 1990, the American Psychological Association (APA) found that "severe negative reactions [after abortion] are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses."[8] The APA updated its findings in August 2008 to account for new evidence, and again concluded that termination of a first unplanned pregnancy did not increase the risk of mental-health problems.[3][9] A 2008 systematic review of the medical literature on abortion and mental health found that high-quality studies consistently showed few or no mental-health consequences of abortion, while poor-quality studies were more likely to report negative consequences.[10] In December 2011, the U.K. National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health published a systematic review of available evidence, similarly concluding that abortion did not increase the risk of mental-health problems.[4][11]
Despite the weight of medical opinion on the subject, some pro-life advocacy groups have continued to allege a link between abortion and mental-health problems.[12] Some pro-life groups have used the term "post-abortion syndrome" to refer to negative psychological effects which they attribute to abortion. However, "post-abortion syndrome" is not recognized as an actual syndrome by any medical or psychological organization,[13] and physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that the effort to popularize the idea of a "post-abortion syndrome" is a tactic used by pro-life advocates for political purposes.[1][12][14][15] Some U.S. state legislatures have mandated that patients be told that abortion increases their risk of depression and suicide, despite the fact that such risks are not supported by the bulk of the scientific literature.[10][16]
Abortion and mental health wiki
Would be nice if she could actually not spread misinformation to try support her opposition to abortion.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
"If she was suicidal she should have received immediate psychiatric care and sometimes that involves medical intervention that would include hospitalisation and the proper medication"
Women who are suicidal because they are pregnant should be institutionalised and medicated.
"She’ll never regret giving birth to her baby but she would have regretted an abortion. "
How can she possibly know that, considering that the vast majority of women who have abortions don't regret them?
I also love how she's equated aborting a foetus to sexual abuse. And is it just me or does she strongly imply that 'the community' should be made aware of women who have had abortions?0 -
How can she possibly know that, considering that the vast majority of women who have abortions don't regret them?
she can't know it.
these people in this country or up north are used to having their religious doctrine imposed on everyone.
the country is a joke for bowing to these fanatics but the problem is, there are many of them and politicians can't risk losing their vote.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Well, at least Bernie gave advance notice that she was going to turn things (the questions put to her) around, quite expert in handling questions from the media. She completely avoided the mental health state of the woman pre-op when the woman had told several people that she would kill herself if she was not given an abortion. All Bernie's quotes on abortion-suicide are post-op.
I'm left wondering how she matches up institutionalizing the woman without it being against the woman's will, as Bernie's stated view is that it was done because the woman's life might be in danger. Presumably Bernie was referring to the woman's self-declared intent to kill herself. It ain't safe to assume that Bernie would want to have women who had abortions done for child abuse, as that might make them think she was hypocritical in the way she sat with them while they were feeling suicidal post-op.
Absolutely nothing from Bernie to indicate that she had any consideration for the well-being of the feotus, apart from this strange or sarcastic part in her 5th answer " I don’t believe aborting a child for any reason is in anyway beneficial to that child". I'm wondering if by "medical intervention" Bernie meant caesarean-op procedure, and not just mental health-care in an institution.
Going back to the original decision NOT to provide an abortion on the grounds that it was too late to do so, I'm not sure if it was because the medical people thought it was outside the time where an abortion-op would be safe for the woman, or whether it was because the time-limit for aborting a feotus here would have been breached.0 -
No condescension intended, you simply started your post talking about the information referendum and finished talking about the right to travel.Loafing Oaf wrote: »It's a shame condescension wasn't an Olympic sport, you'd be a shoe-in for a gold medal. I'm just pointing out that given the context in which the referendums were held, it would be ludicrously disingenuous to pretend their purpose was not to legally guarantee the right to travel to another country for abortion and to access information on abortion services in other countries.
I don't think anyone is pretending that the referenda occurred in a different context, however, had the amendments been intended purely to facilitate travel and information solely for the purpose of procuring abortion that could have been easily specified in the amendments, but it wasn't. By leaving the context open the two Amendments protected specific rights in the Constitution which guaranteed greater personal freedoms, an aspect that could not have been lost on the framers of the Amendments. Even if at will abortion had already been made freely available in Ireland, how many people do you think would have voted against them?0 -
aloyisious wrote: »or whether it was because the time-limit for aborting a feotus here would have been breached.
I don't think the law includes a time limit. If it did, it would be unconstitutional, since the constitution does not include a time limit for abortion.0 -
had the amendments been intended purely to facilitate travel and information solely for the purpose of procuring abortion that could have been easily specified in the amendments, but it wasn't.
Yes, it was, as I already explained upthread.
We did not add a general right to travel to the constitution: we added a clause saying that the equal right to life of the unborn can not be used to limit the right to travel.
The sole, single, only effect of that change is to stop the state from preventing pregnant women from travelling for abortion.
Similarly, the freedom of information amendment is part of the clause in the constitution about the unborn: it isn't a general right to information about services which are legal in other jurisdictions, it is specifically saying that the state can't use the right to life of the unborn to ban information.
If you were confused about this at the time and voted Yes by mistake, I'm glad. But actually, no-one was confused at the time.
We also understood the proposal to remove risk of self destruction as a grounds for legal abortion, and rejected it.0 -
Advertisement
-
No condescension intended, you simply started your post talking about the information referendum and finished talking about the right to travel.
I don't think anyone is pretending that the referenda occurred in a different context, however, had the amendments been intended purely to facilitate travel and information solely for the purpose of procuring abortion that could have been easily specified in the amendments, but it wasn't. By leaving the context open the two Amendments protected specific rights in the Constitution which guaranteed greater personal freedoms, an aspect that could not have been lost on the framers of the Amendments. Even if at will abortion had already been made freely available in Ireland, how many people do you think would have voted against them?
All part of the hypocrisy and double think of the whole exercise: a right to info on - nudge, nudge, wink, wink - "services lawfully available in another state". You don't want to be rubbing people's noses in their hypocrisy after all. I remember a couple of the more hardline Catholic bishops came out against the right to travel referendum - not because they actually wanted to interfere with women's right to travel, god forbid, but because they didn't want to explicitly insert in the constitution a right to travel abroad for an abortion. So if you had actually framed the travel and info referenda as specifically about abortion, there was a slight risk that the hypocritical majority could not have brought themselves to support it and the state would have been faced with the appalling vista of trying to stop women travelling for abortions.0 -
What a contemptable piece of work is Bernie Smith, how base in reason,
how condescending in faculties, in form and moving,
how vacillating and detestable in action, how boorish in apprehension,
how like the spoiled brat as imagined to be god by christians!
With apologies to Wm. Shakespeare.0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 26391
Would be nice if she could actually not spread misinformation to try support her opposition to abortion.
What a let facts get in the way of a good rant? Never!!!
:rolleyes:
She appears to be yet another in the long line of people that just don't appear to take mental health issues seriously,0 -
Richard Bingham wrote: »I think it is more civilised to have regard for all human life than to be so selfish as to place no importance on the life of the baby. I appreciate you stating your position so honestly as there are loads of people with your view who claim they have regard for both but in reality they just want the convenience of being able to destroy a human being because it's existence doesn't suit them.
Is it so hard to understand that I do place value on the life of the unborn, but that I might place a higher value on the autonomy of a woman? Please don't misrepresent my position here. I have seen enough people suffer when a much wanted baby has miscarried to know that an unborn baby is of importance. It is of huge importance to the parents.
Let me describe how I came to my current position on abortion.
When I left school, about 30 years ago, I was anti-abortion. I had never thought about the hard cases, like rape, and FFA, because all I got at school was completely biased propaganda.
As I got older, and learnt of the X case, and the A,B,C cases, my position changed. I learned a lot about human biology. I read other opinions. I lived in other countries, like Sweden, Australia and Canada, where abortion was available. I learned that the people in those countries were not monsters, and that much of the propaganda that had been pushed at me at school was completely unfounded.
More than anything else though, I have met women who have had unwanted pregnancies, and who have had abortions. These women were friends and relatives, real people with real lives. I have seen the impact an unwanted pregnancy can have on a woman's life, I have seen first-hand the distress, the confusion, the panic, the fear of being judged. (Sadly enough one friend was convinced that I would hate her for having an abortion, because being Irish, I must naturally disapprove.) One woman was already a mother to several children, but felt she couldn't cope with another. Another woman was about to start college and didn't want to have children yet. There were others, each case was different. All of them were distressed at their position, and while some agonised over the decision to abort more than others, all were certain they had made the right decision.
I am now in the opposite position to where I was 30 years ago. I fully believe that a woman should be able to get an abortion on demand, after consulting with her doctor, in a similar way to the way it works in Canada. I don't think it benefits society to have strict legal rules about it.
It doesn't mean that I "don't care" about unborn babies, it means that I have learned to care much more about the women who are being forced to bear them.
.0 -
Times today
"Concerns about the welfare of the young woman at the centre of the latest abortion controversy were raised with two State bodies by Spirasi, a group that supports victims of torture, in June.
Its director Greg Straton confirmed yesterday that the organisation had written to the HSE and the Department of Justice in connection with her case in early June. Mr Straton said the letters had said that the young woman had shown a strong will to take her own life.
He said Spirasi immediately made contact with the HSE and the Department of Justice after the woman had been referred to its services and been examined by one of its doctors."
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/two-state-agencies-told-of-fears-for-woman-in-abortion-case-1.1906644
However theres also
Meanwhile Gardaí have confirmed that a file has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to an investigation of practices at crisis pregnancy clinics, including the advice given at some of them.
The Garda investigation follows an undercover investigation by pro-life groups who sent supporters into clinics posing as women with crisis pregnancies in 2012. The investigation was carried out by Store Street Garda station.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Yes, it was, <...> the equal right to life of the unborn can not be used to limit the right to travel.
It's a fair point; I read 'this subsection' as applying to all of what is actually a section (3) not a subsection, so I was absolutely incorrect.0 -
Right.Times today
"Concerns about the welfare of the young woman at the centre of the latest abortion controversy were raised with two State bodies by Spirasi, a group that supports victims of torture, in June.
Its director Greg Straton confirmed yesterday that the organisation had written to the HSE and the Department of Justice in connection with her case in early June. Mr Straton said the letters had said that the young woman had shown a strong will to take her own life.
He said Spirasi immediately made contact with the HSE and the Department of Justice after the woman had been referred to its services and been examined by one of its doctors."
However theres also
Meanwhile Gardaí have confirmed that a file has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to an investigation of practices at crisis pregnancy clinics, including the advice given at some of them.
The Garda investigation follows an undercover investigation by pro-life groups who sent supporters into clinics posing as women with crisis pregnancies in 2012. The investigation was carried out by Store Street Garda station.
So the anti-choice groups are both trying to entrap the IFPA, trying to make them go further than they are legally mandated to, so as to get them closed down, presumably, and also trying to put the blame onto the IFPA over the delay in this particular case because they say the IFPA didn't go far enough in organizing the abortion for her.
Good. That is clear at least. Hypocrites, is the only word for them.0 -
Myself, I am pro-choice. As a male it is not a choice I will ever have to make, but will only ever be periphally involved in. Fortunately, mrs Sectus and I have the same point of view on this one: we strongly believe that this should be a woman's choice. That a termination in the first trimester should be fairly quick, and focused on not making an already very stressful situation worse. That later terminations must be possible, but should require more involvement from healthcare providers and a clear case of distress, danger or some other compelling factor, as the more developed state of the fetus starts to give it rights of it's own.
I feel this way because pretending that a small clump of cells is a person is idiotic in my view: it is something that under the right circumstances could develop into a person. I see no difference between stopping it from developing and preventing this development from starting in the first place. A sperm and an egg are not a person: sperm, egg, the right circumstances and time can lead to a person. A match is not a forest fire.
I find the way some of the anti-choice camp equate fetuses to babies foolish: before significant development has taken place, they are potential babies - there is no qualitative difference between preventing the development of a baby before or after fertilization. The moment that we call "conception" is an arbitrary stage in the human reproductive cycle, unless you invoke something supernatural.
Once enough development takes place for us to be able to imagine it experiencing anything, I think we should start affording it a bit more protection. But I would never forbid termination entirely: human beings are not things, women are not incubators. I would just make sure there are procedures in place to give us the best chance of making the right call for the sake of all involved.
That said, our own choice is actually pro-life. That is to say it would be mine if it ever came to it, which it obviously cannot, and in our conversations on the subject, Mrs Sectus always said this was her position too. This is because we are not in favor of abortions at all: that is like saying you are in favor of amputations. It is just that we feel that it would be barbaric to force our choice on other people. We simply do not have the right to make those kind of decisions about other people's bodies.
Abortion legislation must always primarily be about compassion, about limiting, if possible, the amount of suffering caused by an already painful and distressing situation. Since a first trimester fetus without much nerve development cannot conceivably suffer and has never been aware, I feel that a woman should be able to decide if she wants to carry it or not.0 -
SPUC's tactics haven't gone away, you know.Right.
So the anti-choice groups are both trying to entrap the IFPA, trying to make them go further than they are legally mandated to, so as to get them closed down, presumably, and also trying to put the blame onto the IFPA over the delay in this particular case because they say the IFPA didn't go far enough in organizing the abortion for her.
Good. That is clear at least. Hypocrites, is the only word for them.0 -
Richard Bingham wrote: »I think it is more civilised to have regard for all human life than to be so selfish as to place no importance on the life of the baby. I appreciate you stating your position so honestly as there are loads of people with your view who claim they have regard for both but in reality they just want the convenience of being able to destroy a human being because it's existence doesn't suit them.
Richard, I am not putting words into your mouth, nor an alternative meaning to whatever you meant in your two-sentence quote above, I am just reading what you typed there.
It seem's to me that it is directly condemnatory of the mother for seeking an abortion, and for her statements that she would commit suicide if she was not allowed an abortion, given that both positions would have meant the end for the feotus, unless you are allowing the woman some grace or excuse due to mental stress, as otherwise she would surely fit the bill you set out as having no regard for all life, being selfish or placing no importance on the life of the feotus, plus the convenience piece you included about destroying a human being.
Also the feotus was NOT a baby until after the caesarean operation. Your use of the words baby and human being when you are actually referring to the feotus in the woman's womb are seen for what they are, an attempt to confuse the debate. The state, as you know, does NOT permit the destruction of human beings.0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 26391
Television presenter Dr Christian Jessen has waded into the debate over the legalisation of abortion in Ireland by tweeting an ‘Irish pregnancy flow chart’.
http://www.her.ie/entertainment/tv/embarrassing-bodies-star-tweets-controversial-irish-pregnancy-flow-chart/
Basically it sums things up,0 -
Richard Bingham wrote:I think it is more civilised to have regard for all human life than to be so selfish as to place no importance on the life of the baby. I appreciate you stating your position so honestly as there are loads of people with your view who claim they have regard for both but in reality they just want the convenience of being able to destroy a human being because it's existence doesn't suit them.
I am sure there are people who are in favor of giving people the right to control their own reproductive systems who are driven by such base motivations as you describe: callous, unscrupulous people who simply do not want to give the matter any thought and who do not care a whit about the consequences.
Just as I am sure that some people who are against giving people the right to abortions just want the convenience of being able to force women to support pregnancies that they do not want, simply waving away the tremendous suffering and appalling loss of personal integrity and freedom that this entails on the basis of some sweeping claims about vague and quasi-religious phrases about the sanctity of human life, which they cannot rationally support.
It would be easy to go further, and imply that this callousness towards women who are pregnant against their will is often based on poorly hidden sexism and an unspoken desire to enforce their religious views on other people, a sort of knee-jerk conservatism based on half-examined religious and anti-feminist instincts. We could use a lot of loaded language and emotive terms, accusing them of sexism, misogyny, of wanting to turn women into slaves or incubators, of religious authoritarianism, etc etc etc.
I have seen my fair share of people like that and they do exist! And if I pretended that all people who oppose abortion rights were like that, it would be very easy for me: it would mean I could simply disregard anything they say without giving their arguments due consideration.
But that would be a very lazy, complacent and hypocritical approach. Are you sure you are managing to avoid that particular temptation?0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 26391
http://www.thejournal.ie/fatal-foetal-abnormalities-waiting-lists-1637674-Aug2014/
No choice groups are happy to stop these women getting the support and services they need in Ireland, its sickening!There have been reports that Irish women have had to wait for up to a month for an appointment.One woman told TheJournal.ie about her experience, whereby she had to wait for a month to get an appointment in a UK hospital after her baby was diagnosed with Edwards syndrome or Trisomy 18, a chromosomal disorder.
“This was my third pregnancy. I have two healthy, happy children, so I didn’t expect anything different this time,” she explained, adding that her and her partner were devastated when they were told the news at her 22 week scan.
There was an awful lot of stuff wrong with our baby we were told. There were cysts on the brain, his heart wasn’t developed right and his hands were deformed. We were told we had options.We were told that the baby might last a few hours after birth or possibly a few months, but our baby would need pallative care.
“It was horrific. He would have been born in pain, and I couldn’t do that to him. I am not pro-choice or pro-life. I am pro-baby. I didn’t want to do it, but I did what I had to for him, so he wouldn’t be in pain,” she explained.
The no choice crowd are happy to have a baby born at any cost, even if that baby is born in agony and will never live longer then a few min, hours, days or weeks.
Abit of info about Edwards syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_syndromeIn 2008/2009, 495 diagnoses of Edwards syndrome (trisomy 18) were made in England and Wales, 92% of which were made prenatally, resulting in 339 abortions, 49 stillbirths/miscarriages/fetal deaths, 72 unknown outcomes, and 35 live births.[9] Because about 3% of cases with unknown outcomes are likely to result in a live birth, the total number of live births is estimated to be 37 (2008/09 data are provisional).
Major causes of death include apnea and heart abnormalities. It is impossible to predict an exact prognosis during pregnancy or the neonatal period.[7] Half of infants with this condition do not survive beyond the first week of life.[10] The median lifespan is five to 15 days.[11][12] About 8% of infants survive longer than 1 year.[13] One percent of children live to age 10, typically in less severe cases of the mosaic Edwards syndrome.[7]0 -
Urgh - trisomy 18 must be the absolute worst. Our daughter was diagnosed with an elevated risk of trisomy18 or other chromosomal abnormalities early on in the pregnancy, and we had to go and have tests done to make sure she was OK. They said there was a change of it, or downs syndrome. As it turns out she was a-ok, to our relief.
I remember the conversations we had. Me and Mrs Sectus both hate the idea of having an abortion done. Since Downs syndrome, while it comes with a lot of obstacles, but does not actually make a happy life impossible, we would not have done anything if that had been the outcome. We may be pro choice, but we both choose pro life for ourselves.
But trisomy18? A few months of excruciating pain, with no hope of ever overcoming it? That is beyond barbaric. No-one should be put through that. I would have accepted the responsibility, with all the doubts and fears and second-guesses that come with it, to spare someone that horrible suffering.0 -
Yeah, there seems to be this rewriting of rewriting by quite a few anti-choice groups which claims that people voted for the right to travel because they were afraid they wouldn't be able to go to Magaluff on their holliers any more!!
Mind, the same poster here who claims that was the case doesn't seem to grasp the concept of the paraphrase either - he seems to believe that if the word "remove" doesn't actually appear in a law, then it has to be a law which increases rights! (He thinks the failed 12th amendment would have liberalized the abortion law. Honest!)
And, of course, the law regulating the SC Judgement in relation to a woman's enumerated right to life contains all the circumstances to vindicate that right and which the SC interprets as existing under that right, including the suicide clause, which the "liberalising" Amendment 12 sought to extinguish.
Honestly, it's Through the Looking Glass for these Antj-choice people, some kinda inverse weird world they inhabit.The White Queen offers to hire Alice as her lady's maid and to pay her
"Twopence a week, and jam every other day."
Alice says that she doesn't want any jam today, and the Queen tells her:
"You couldn't have it if you did want it.
The rule is, jam tomorrow and jam yesterday- but never jam to-day ."
This is a reference to the rule in Latin that the word iam, or jam, meaning now in the sense of already or at that time cannot be used to describe now in the present, which is nunc in Latin.
Jam is therefore never available today.
Yiz know what I mean??
I hear some are already drinking their stock of Kool-Aid.
The Rapture surely can't be far away??0 -
Breda O'Brien is coming out with some gems lately. She claimed on Marian Finucaine at the weekend that she's pro choice, as long as one of the choices isn't violence against someone else. She also threw in an aside that she has issues with the morning after pill.
She teaches teenage girls. I wonder how she'd help one of them if they came to her feeling suicidal as a result of a pregnancy because of rape. She'd advise counselling and support, but still tell her she has to gestate and birth the foetus.0 -
Vivisectus wrote: »Urgh - trisomy 18 must be the absolute worst. Our daughter was diagnosed with an elevated risk of trisomy18 or other chromosomal abnormalities early on in the pregnancy, and we had to go and have tests done to make sure she was OK. They said there was a change of it, or downs syndrome. As it turns out she was a-ok, to our relief.
I remember the conversations we had. Me and Mrs Sectus both hate the idea of having an abortion done. Since Downs syndrome, while it comes with a lot of obstacles, but does not actually make a happy life impossible, we would not have done anything if that had been the outcome. We may be pro choice, but we both choose pro life for ourselves.
But trisomy18? A few months of excruciating pain, with no hope of ever overcoming it? That is beyond barbaric. No-one should be put through that. I would have accepted the responsibility, with all the doubts and fears and second-guesses that come with it, to spare someone that horrible suffering.
Brilliant outcome for your daughter, both your Mrs. and you, and your wider circle of friends and family.
Your choice, to go ahead, knowing the possible outcomes, is completely compatible with a Pro choice stance or belief.
You have been very honest and brave, congratulations.0 -
Breda O'Brien is coming out with some gems lately. She claimed on Marian Finucaine at the weekend that she's pro choice, as long as one of the choices isn't violence against someone else. She also threw in an aside that she has issues with the morning after pill.
She teaches teenage girls. I wonder how she'd help one of them if they came to her feeling suicidal as a result of a pregnancy because of rape. She'd advise counselling and support, but still tell her she has to gestate and birth the foetus.
That's inappropriate for her to do as a teacher. A teacher should not be telling a student to get (or not) an abortion.
I would imagine Breda would be calling for a teacher to be sacked if they suggested a pregnant student get an abortion.If you can read this, you're too close!
0 -
That's inappropriate for her to do as a teacher. A teacher should not be telling a student to get (or not) an abortion.
I would imagine Breda would be calling for a teacher to be sacked if they suggested a pregnant student get an abortion.
I'm surmising that if asked, her solution to a girl like Ms X would be remaining pregnant. She's open about her anti abortion views so I can't see how she could provide appropriate advise to a student.0 -
Advertisement
-
Who can blame some of those, captured by this so-called "pro-life" Anti-choice Sect/Cult.
Particularly when one of their offshoots publish stuff like this work of fiction.
http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/history/1992-referendum/Albert Reynolds asked the Irish people to allow abortion where there was a risk to the “health, as distinct from the life” of the mother and threatened even more liberal abortion legislation if this amendment was not carried.
The information and travel amendments were passed but the amendment which would have allowed the introduction of abortion was roundly rejected by 64%.
Though two other amendments on the right to travel and the right to information were passed in a deliberately created atmosphere of confusion.
The Government maintained that these two amendments established general rights and had nothing to do with abortion as such.
The Government threatened during the referendum campaign that if the so-called "substantive amendment"
were not passed it would proceed with legislation.
However the overwhelming defeat of the amendment was clearly seen as a pro-life victory with the last minute intervention by five of the Bishops calling for three "No"s" being crucial to the final outcome.
The Life Institute......
http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/
Perhaps they should consider a name change.....
The Liar Institute.....
Of course, these fundamentalist fanatics allowed the above emboldened lies to remain on their site, even as that decent man was laid to rest.
RIP
What kind of people are they, who would sully the name of an honest man to further their vile propaganda.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement