Irish Government slated by Human Rights Watch over abortion - MOD NOTE POST 5

O'Coonassa

Here

And not a mention of it on RTÉ so far as I can see.

Does RTÉ have a duty to report on the reproductive rights of the women of the nation or are they best not seen and not heard I wonder.

iguana2005

this country is so bloody backward and those pro-lifers do my NUT!!

I had an abortion(out of Ireland)...very sad circumstances but such is life...get over it and move on...mentioning this to my very Irish, perhocial, 'got married at 20, 4 kids, 2 cars, job for life with the HSE and nice house' girlfriends and they let on they were horrified ...only for one of them spilling the beans after some wine that she had one too but if anyone found out...in fact out of a large circle of female friends I can count 5 off the top of my head who have had to travel to the UK to have an abortion...

Why are Irish people so very anti abortion and on people who have had it done? Its very sad and a very deep, personal and hurtful journey on any girl/women/partners life...why do prolifers have to show disembodied images of fetus etc...its terrible - do you not think that we realise what we were doing?

Rant rant rant..am too tired and talking crap..you get the drift..it should be an individuals choice not a bloody government..

Tragedy

I had a read of the guardian article, the HRW press release, and the report itself.

It's terrible, it doesn't try to be factual or objective, from the start it reads like something from the daily mail full of hypocracy, false statistics and inflamed allegations which it doesn't back up.

No wonder it isn't being reported on, it's **** and won't do anything to help the debate about abortion or push Ireland closer to legalising it.

entropi

I only mentioned this to my mam earlier when i seen it on tv3 news, that this country is still too backward and caught up in stupid religious belief. Women have the right to make their own choice, own decicions without undue or subversive influence by people who, in all walks of life, havent got a clue.

I honestly dont care what arguments pro-life or pro-abortion groups have for their stances, usually one group is formed just so they can be opposition to the original anyway.

If a woman wants an abortion, let her...her reasons are her own.

Jules

Ok guys this has always turned into a very hot topic. And i will start with this... No abusive language towards either side. People have a right to their point of view. No use of terms such as baby killers or breeder or anything like that. We are grown ups and shoudl be able to have a proper conversation.

Remember this is the LADIES LOUNGE, while we welcome male points of view here this is a very emotional topic for women, more so than men. And yes you might say well men have just as much right to having a baby etc at the end of the day it is the womans body and as i said this is a forum for women!

THERE WILL BE NO WARNINGS, PEOPLE WILL BE INFRACTED AT FIRST AND THEN BANNED IF THEY CONTINUE TO ACT OUT OF LINE

O'Coonassa

Rather than looking for a re-run of the usual wrong Vs right yawnfest I was more angling the discussion towards the fact that the State broadcaster is clearly stuck in the dark ages alongside the whole national hypocrisy over abortion. I think if I was female I'd be even more vexed at them than I already am.

This is just one more example of things not being reported that clearly should be reported regardless of what your opinion is on the actual issue. HRW are probably the most foremost human rights group in the world and their reports are frequently in the RTÉ headlines. Now on this though there's total silence from them, it feels like being in Iran or China.

@Jules, are you saying women are more emotional than men? I'd tend to agree but I thought that point of view wasn't cool these days

O'Coonassa

Tragedy wrote: »

from the start it reads like something from the daily mail full of hypocracy, false statistics and inflamed allegations which it doesn't back up..

It, the HRW report, reads like any academic document that has been researched. They present their methodology quite clearly. If you have issue with the methodology or valid criticism to level at it then you should say why but your comments here are far more Daily Mailesque than the report itself

Jules

I understand that and think its a great subject, but at some point someone will start and i just want to be able to nip it in the bud and not throw the thread off topic.

O'Coonassa wrote: »

@Jules, are you saying women are more emotional than men? I'd tend to agree but I thought that point of view wasn't cool these days

IMPO - woman tend to be more open about their emotions, but i have ment soem very emotional men!


Back on Topic!

Tragedy

O'Coonassa wrote: »

It, the HRW report, reads like any academic document that has been researched. They present their methodology quite clearly. If you have issue with the methodology or valid criticism to level at it then you should say why but your comments here are far more Daily Mailesque than the report itself

No it doesn't.

To give some examples from one short section of the 'report' - it opens up section IV with this quote from a pro-abortion advocate:
"In their daily work family doctors see the reality of the failure of the state to legalise abortion. They see the palpable horror of the woman who awaits a pregnancy test that she fears is positive. She must face this situation in the knowledge that she cannot have an abortion in Ireland."
This is, to put it bluntly, ****. Firstly, it presumes every woman awaits a pregnancy test in palpable horror. And secondly, it links this horror to not being able to have an abortion.
That's quite insulting to the female gender, as it insinuates the first thought they'll have is "I want an abortion but can't have one".

The ban on abortion has not stopped women from having
abortions. It has, however, turned what should be a profoundly personal
decision into a situation where women routinely experience unnecessary risk,
stigma, shame and anguish.

Emotive language, no attempt to be logical/neutral and just lay out the facts.

It links abortion being banned to abortion having a stigma and sense of shame, which they don't back up or give any basis to.

The need to travel to have a medical procedure raises many concerns for women: many struggle to raise money for travel, the abortion and other related costs;

Instead of being "The right to an Abortion", suddenly it's "The right to an abortion, to have it for free and to have all your costs paid for you".

for others, feelings of anxiety and isolation are reinforced by punitive legislation and a public discourse about abortion that excludes their voices and experiences.

More emotive language, nothing to back up that public discourse is excluding their voices and experiences.

Authoritative interpretations of international law recognize that obtaining a safe and legal abortion is of fundamental importance to women’s ability to exercise and enjoy their human rights

No it doesn't. For every "authoritative interpretation" arguing that an abortion is a womans human right, there are people offering "authoritative interpretations" that it's an infringement on a childs human right.

The Irish ban on abortion unequivocally denies women protection for this range of their human rights.

Unequivocally.

It then goes on to somehow link abortion being illegal, to resulting in women being subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Because they go together like peanut butter and jelly.

This doesn't read like an academic document. It's full of emotive language designed to make you feel sorry for the subject of the report, with vague illogical linkings and full of words like "authoritative" and "unequivocal" without any actual references.

In short, it adds nothing to the debate.

If I was anti abortion/pro-life, I could literally rip this document to shreds. Thankfully, I'm mostly pro abortion.

PS: Betcha RTE and breakingnews report on this tomorrow.

goose2005

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Rather than looking for a re-run of the usual wrong Vs right yawnfest I was more angling the discussion towards the fact that the State broadcaster is clearly stuck in the dark ages alongside the whole national hypocrisy over abortion. I think if I was female I'd be even more vexed at them than I already am.

This is just one more example of things not being reported that clearly should be reported regardless of what your opinion is on the actual issue. HRW are probably the most foremost human rights group in the world and their reports are frequently in the RTÉ headlines. Now on this though there's total silence from them, it feels like being in Iran or China.

@Jules, are you saying women are more emotional than men? I'd tend to agree but I thought that point of view wasn't cool these days

RTÉ often shy away from anything really controversial - when Dan Keating, last veteran of the War of Independence, died, they didn't report it because he was an extremist republican all his life, and was patron of Republican Sinn Féin (i.e., Continuity IRA). So this sort of cowardice is common.

Master of Nothing wrote: »

I only mentioned this to my mam earlier when i seen it on tv3 news, that this country is still too backward and caught up in stupid religious belief. Women have the right to make their own choice, own decicions without undue or subversive influence by people who, in all walks of life, havent got a clue.

I don't think it's acceptable to say all pro-lifers simply don't have a clue. And many people's opposition to abortion is non-religious - mine is (although I'd be ok with it in the very early stages, say 40 days.)

iguana2005 wrote: »

this country is so bloody backward and those pro-lifers do my NUT!!

I had an abortion(out of Ireland)...very sad circumstances but such is life...get over it and move on...mentioning this to my very Irish, perhocial, 'got married at 20, 4 kids, 2 cars, job for life with the HSE and nice house' girlfriends and they let on they were horrified ...only for one of them spilling the beans after some wine that she had one too but if anyone found out...in fact out of a large circle of female friends I can count 5 off the top of my head who have had to travel to the UK to have an abortion...

So if everyone does it, it's OK?

Why are Irish people so very anti abortion and on people who have had it done? Its very sad and a very deep, personal and hurtful journey on any girl/women/partners life...why do prolifers have to show disembodied images of fetus etc...its terrible - do you not think that we realise what we were doing?

"deep, personal and hurtful journey" - what is this, Oprah? And your mention of the foetus image suggests that you feel more guilt than you let on?

Rant rant rant..am too tired and talking crap..you get the drift..it should be an individuals choice not a bloody government..

An appendectomy is an individual's choice, because the appendix is clearly just a part of the individual's body. A foetus is possibly (depending on one's views) a separate human, and if he/she/it is a human, surely the question of whether he/she/it is a human can be killed is a matter for the State?

O'Coonassa

"They see the palpable horror of the woman who awaits a pregnany test that she fears is positive"

Nothing about every woman there is there? It is talking specifically about the type of woman who is in the type of situation where she will want to get an abortion. It's ridiculous to suggest that they're talking about all women or that this is a slight on the entire female gender.

"The ban on abortion has not stopped women from having abortions" Is a cold hard fact.

"It has, however, turned what should be a profoundly personal
decision into a situation where women routinely experience unnecessary risk, stigma, shame and anguish."

Again how can you argue to the contrary? Are you suggesting that this is not the case? That these emotions do not arise in people who are faced with an emotional decision? Are we to pretend that emotions don't occur?

Instead of being "The right to an Abortion", suddenly it's "The right to an abortion, to have it for free and to have all your costs paid for you".

What they're alluding to is not the fact that abortion should be free but that people shouldn't have to go to the expense of travelling overseas to have one. I really don't see how you can miss that point.

Also "authoritative interpretations of international law" these come from places like the UN and the WHO. It is ridiculous to suggest that the type of cranks who consider a non-sentient collection of cells to be a "baby" are in any way competent to offer authoritative interpretations of international law. They cannot even get their heads around basic human biology.

Cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is involved to a degree in any violation of human rights which most certainly include female reproductive rights and the control of their own bodies. I hope you are right that RTÉ report on this tomorrow. As it stands they already richly deserve the slogan "yesterdays news today".

Tragedy

For TLDR'rs -> Report is a PR advocacy piece, not a report. If you want to see what a real report looks like, see the WHO one I link below.

O'Coonassa wrote: »

It is talking specifically about the type of woman who is in the type of situation where she will want to get an abortion.

It isn't phrased like that. You can argue intent all you like, english is english.



"It has, however, turned what should be a profoundly personal
decision into a situation where women routinely experience unnecessary risk, stigma, shame and anguish."

Again how can you argue to the contrary? Are you suggesting that this is not the case? That these emotions do not arise in people who are faced with an emotional decision? Are we to pretend that emotions don't occur?

Quite easily. Women routinely experience these things? Based on what? What evidence? What facts? What research?

I see you neglected to reply to "It links abortion being banned to abortion having a stigma and sense of shame, which they don't back up or give any basis to.". If abortion was legalised tomorrow, would the stigma and sense of shame evaporate?

What they're alluding to is not the fact that abortion should be free but that people shouldn't have to go to the expense of travelling overseas to have one. I really don't see how you can miss that point.

Really?
"Women with crisis pregnancies are forced to navigate the emotional, financial, and health implications of their decisions unsupported—and in many cases sabotaged—by the state."
Unsupported by the state. Surely that means they expect the state to pay for the abortions and financially support them? It's there in plain english.

"They also described financial constraints. Every woman interviewed for this report told Human Rights Watch how difficult it was to raise the money needed to pay for travel and the costs of the abortion."
Here we go again.

"The obligation of all publicly funded health institutions to ensure that they have on their staff healthcare workers who will perform abortions"
So it's not just legal abortions, it's free ones!

It spends a whole subsection going on about how hard it is for girls to raise the fee for the abortion in the UK(not the travel costs, the FEE) and goes on about how they have to go to money lenders etc.

Also "authoritative interpretations of international law" these come from places like the UN and the WHO.

No they don't.
WHO's report on abortion doesn't mention international law at all. WHO's report on abortion is about how unsafe abortions cost lives both directly and indirectly and place strain on a countrys resources.
Guess what, it doesn't mention Ireland at all.
(link)

I don't even know where to begin on your claim that the UN has issued rulings that it's an infringement on a womans human rights to deny them an abortion.
It hasn't, read up on ICPD 94(a hint: it makes clear that ICPD doesn't support abortion as family planning or the legalisation of abortion on demand).

This is what the European Commission had to say on the matter:
"“The term ‘reproductive health’ was defined by the United Nations (UN) in 1994 at the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development. All Member States of the Union endorsed the Programme of Action adopted at Cairo. The Union has never adopted an alternative definition of ‘reproductive health’ to that given in the Programme of Action, which makes no reference to abortion.”

While the Council of Europe adopted a non-binding resolution on the legalisation of abortion, it did based on the grounds that women denied a safe, legal method of abortion would nonetheless continue with an unsafe illegal method. It made clear that abortions per se were neither legal or illegal under international law.

So, the European Commission and UN disagree with the reports 'authoritative interpretations'.

It is ridiculous to suggest that the type of cranks who consider a non-sentient collection of cells to be a "baby" are in any way competent to offer authoritative interpretations of international law. They cannot even get their heads around basic human biology.

I see now why you worship the report, it uses the same kind of convoluted emotional logic as you.

Cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment is involved to a degree in any violation of human rights

Legally it isn't.

which most certainly include female reproductive rights and the control of their own bodies.

Legally, according to the UN, the right to reproductive rights doesn't in and of itself allow the legal right to an abortion.
Sorry you dislike it though.

I'm sorry. You think this is some sort of factual report. You only need to read the intro to know that it is anything but the sort. It skimps on the facts instead resorting to emotionally loaded language at every chance.
I can see the person who wrote it crying solitary tears at some of the beautiful tragic "facts" she's just written. It just drips shameless emotional blackmail.

You want to see an example of why this isn't a report?

The report says this:

In 2000, the United Nations Human Rights Committee called on the Irish government to ensure that women were not forced to continue with unwanted pregnancies and expressed concern about the limited circumstances in which legal abortions were permissible in Ireland.

The UNHRC actually said this:

23. The Committee is concerned that the circumstances in which women may lawfully obtain an abortion are restricted to when the life of the mother is in danger and do not include, for example, situations where the pregnancy is the result of rape.

24. The State party should ensure that women are not compelled to continue with pregnancies where that is incompatible with obligations arising under the Covenant (art. 7) and General Comment No. 28.

That is nothing like what the 'factual report' said. The 'factual report' didn't lie, but it came as close to as make no difference.

That's but one example, I can give you another twenty if you want.

Smallbit

Here we go again. You cannot actually have a reasoned argument on this issue because it descends into a pointless forensic dissection of a bunch of newspaper and/or scholarly articles.

Most of the people arguing, and certainly the most vociferous and agressive anti-abortion campaigners have never had an abortion, or even faced the horrible choice.

All we get is a simplistic black and white one size fits all 'solution' to a complex emotional and physical issue... Ban it. Nice and simple.

Those driving their oppressive agenda are mostly delusional god-botherers who can't accept the complexity of real life and must take refuge in antiquated fairy stories dispensed by men in frocks every sunday.

Sorry folks, rant over now.

panda100

I just read The Guardian article,not the full report but I completely agree that its abhorrent that there is no legislation against Rogue Crisis pregnancy agencys in Ireland.
Having been to the Women Resource Centre, or whatever name it goes under now, in Limerick I find it reprehensible that these distressing and damaging agenda driven agencies are allowed to funtion in our society.

entropi

goose2005 wrote: »

I don't think it's acceptable to say all pro-lifers simply don't have a clue. And many people's opposition to abortion is non-religious - mine is (although I'd be ok with it in the very early stages, say 40 days.)

If you would kindly re-read my post again...actually i'll paste in the part that is causing you trouble "own decisions without undue or subversive influence by people who, in all walks of life, havent got a clue."

I never mentioned ANYTHING about pro-lifers not having a clue...or pro abortionists. I said PEOPLE, and from what i remember, both sides are human right? so both sides can be the ones who push the decision onto a woman who, in that emotional state, can be influenced alot easier i would imagine, rather than her make the decision for herself, which was my point from the start.


I am not insensitive to the situation many women would feel from having this hard choice to make, thrust upon them. I know many women who have miscarried and felt like their world crumbled...let alone make the conscious choice to keep or destroy life.

Tragedy

Smallbit wrote: »

Here we go again. You cannot actually have a reasoned argument on this issue because it descends into a pointless forensic dissection of a bunch of newspaper and/or scholarly articles.

What? This thread is about an article. We're discussing the article. Somehow we're offtopic and doing terrible things?

Most of the people arguing, and certainly the most vociferous and agressive anti-abortion campaigners have never had an abortion, or even faced the horrible choice.

What are you talking about? There's three people arguing I can see, one for, one against, and one against this shambles of an argument(but for abortion).

Tell me, have all the people on boards who are pro-abortion faced an abortion? Because you seem to be saying they have, ergo they know what they're talking about.

All we get is a simplistic black and white one size fits all 'solution' to a complex emotional and physical issue... Ban it. Nice and simple.

Where did anyone say that in this thread? The only people with a simplistic black and white one size fits all viewpoint on this thread seem to be O'Coonasa and yourself.

Those driving their oppressive agenda are mostly delusional god-botherers who can't accept the complexity of real life and must take refuge in antiquated fairy stories dispensed by men in frocks every sunday.

Sorry folks, rant over now.

Not just a rant, a delusional one based on nothing that's been said on this thread.

You know, the reason abortion is such a hard topic to discuss on boards is twofold.
Anti-abortion evangelists, and pro-abortion nutjobs. They're both as bad as each other, and both screwing up the chances to have proper public discourse on the role of Abortion in Ireland, so maybe, just maybe, things can finally change.

Handsome Bob

Another woman described being harassed over the phone by a pro-life agency for weeks: "They would ask 'Is your baby still alive? Have you killed it yet?'."

Hardly appropiate language to use when trying to convince someone not to do something. If anything that kind of language would just make me more determined. They sound like they are more interested in taking shots and taking the moral high ground rather than actually trying to save the life of an unborn.

Catari Jaguar

Tragedy wrote: »

No it doesn't.

To give some examples from one short section of the 'report' - it opens up section IV with this quote from a pro-abortion advocate:
"In their daily work family doctors see the reality of the failure of the state to legalise abortion. They see the palpable horror of the woman who awaits a pregnancy test that she fears is positive. She must face this situation in the knowledge that she cannot have an abortion in Ireland."
This is, to put it bluntly, ****. Firstly, it presumes every woman awaits a pregnancy test in palpable horror. And secondly, it links this horror to not being able to have an abortion.
That's quite insulting to the female gender, as it insinuates the first thought they'll have is "I want an abortion but can't have one".
.

I disagree with you... The quote says "palpable horror of THE woman" not women. THE woman that already, for whatever reason "fears it is positive".

Some women do fear a test is positive because the baby is unplanned. They would be the ones that might consider abortion. The article is about them and their rights. Planned pregnancies and non crisis pregnancies don't apply here.

I think I'd be up sh1t creek if I realised I was young (broke? single?) & pregnant and had no option but to continue the pregnancy and raise a child! I reckon horror is a pretty apt description.

It doesn't insinuate, to me anyway, that all women want to terminate their pregnancies.

Tragedy

Lil Kitten wrote: »

I disagree with you... The quote says "palpable horror of THE woman" not women. THE woman that already, for whatever reason "fears it is positive".

Some women do fear a test is positive because the baby is unplanned. They would be the ones that might consider abortion. The article is about them and their rights. Planned pregnancies and non crisis pregnancies don't apply here.

I think I'd be up sh1t creek if I realised I was young (broke? single?) & pregnant and had no option but to continue the pregnancy and raise a child! I reckon horror is a pretty apt description.

It doesn't insinuate, to me anyway, that all women want to terminate their pregnancies.

It still links that fear with the difficulty of getting an abortion, does it not?

Catari Jaguar

Tragedy wrote: »

It still links that fear with the difficulty of getting an abortion, does it not?

As if they wouldn't have enough on their mind without having to travel to another country alone, get accomodation and have to bring someone along for support not to mention researching regulated clinics. I think it would be really stressful.

Do you think that there isn't a fear present over abortion here?

Tragedy

Lil Kitten wrote: »

As if they wouldn't have enough on their mind without having to travel to another country alone, get accomodation and have to bring someone along for support not to mention researching regulated clinics. I think it would be really stressful.

Do you think that there isn't a fear present over abortion here?

So, you're assuming that the second the girl hears that she's pregnant from her Doctor her mind skips to "ABORTION ABORTION I WANT AN ABORTION ABORTION ABORTION ABORTION"?

Just like the Doctor quoted is assuming that a girl is afraid of being pregnant because she'll automatically need an abortion and won't be able to get one?

Do you think it's somehow less stressful in the UK or other countries?
I know a 17yo girl from Dublin who went to England for an abortion, she didn't find it stressful at all and didn't care about any of it. I know a 21yo English girl who found getting an abortion stressful, traumatic and harrowing.

In my limited experience, the stress from having an abortion - is that they're having an abortion. The costs and travel are ancillary to that, not many girls I've met ever want to have one and needing to can tear them up inside.

Again, the farce of a report is linking things, implying and assuming all to build a stronger 'case' for itself. It's a crock.

Catari Jaguar

Tragedy wrote: »

So, you're assuming that the second the girl hears that she's pregnant from her Doctor her mind skips to "ABORTION ABORTION I WANT AN ABORTION ABORTION ABORTION ABORTION"?

And where did I assume that or say that in either post?

I don't even know what your point is. You seem contradictory.

If the report is emotive then that's because abortion is an emotional topic. It's not a farce. Bottom line: Abortion should be legal here and it isn't because of the stuck in a rut Catholic views of many people.

It's choice. If I keep or abort my foetus, it's not going to affect a pro-lifer in any way shape or form.

If the report needs to pull at the heart strings it's only because the pro-life brigade does the same thing with its propaganda.

John Mason

this is a horrible topic and it needs to be discussed calmly and with thoughts of people have had terminations already, those who are in the situation of considering one at the moment. no one had the right to judge anyone on their actions. it is not something that people take lightly and without consideration.


all i know is that it is a heartbreaking decision for anyone. i have a friend who was pregnant and found out that her child had a rare genetic disease and was told that the baby would not survive for more then 2 mins when it was born. she was given the option of going through another 5 months of the pregnancy and delivering the baby or going to england for a termination.

she choose england but in the middle of this horrendous situation, she had to organize someone to look after her 16 month old daughter and tell everyone why.

to fly to a different country knowing what is going happen, with no family around and then to have to fly back.

why couldn't she just walk into a hospital in Dublin for an hour or two and go home to her own house, bed and have her family around her to help and support her and her husband.

i just think it should be made easier for people who choose this option.

not one person has the right to judge anyone here. people talk about god and its wrong but it is up the individual person to make their peace with god not for anyone else to decide.

so please think on

tudlytops

irishbird wrote: »

this is a horrible topic and it needs to be discussed calmly and with thoughts of people have had terminations already, those who are in the situation of considering one at the moment. no one had the right to judge anyone on their actions. it is not something that people take lightly and without consideration.


all i know is that it is a heartbreaking decision for anyone. i have a friend who was pregnant and found out that her child had a rare genetic disease and was told that the baby would not survive for more then 2 mins when it was born. she was given the option of going through another 5 months of the pregnancy and delivering the baby or going to england for a termination.

she choose england but in the middle of this horrendous situation, she had to organize someone to look after her 16 month old daughter and tell everyone why.

to fly to a different country knowing what is going happen, with no family around and then to have to fly back.

why couldn't she just walk into a hospital in Dublin for an hour or two and go home to her own house, bed and have her family around her to help and support her and her husband.

i just think it should be made easier for people who choose this option.

not one person has the right to judge anyone here. people talk about god and its wrong but it is up the individual person to make their peace with god not for anyone else to decide.

so please think on

Well said

Catari Jaguar

irishbird wrote: »

to fly to a different country knowing what is going happen, with no family around and then to have to fly back.

why couldn't she just walk into a hospital in Dublin for an hour or two and go home to her own house, bed and have her family around her to help and support her and her husband.

i just think it should be made easier for people who choose this option.

This is what i was talking about a couple of posts back. It's not the abortion itself that's stressful.

Say in the case of a non medical reason unlike your friend, maybe a one night stand pregnancy. The act of going abroad has an exile feel and knowing you're almost secretly leaving to do something illegal because it's wrong in your own country.. This is the stigma and shame the report is talking about.

No one should be made feel that way. Support needs to be in place.

PopUp

irishbird wrote: »

why couldn't she just walk into a hospital in Dublin for an hour or two and go home to her own house, bed and have her family around her to help and support her and her husband.

i just think it should be made easier for people who choose this option

+ 1000. Two years ago a couple I knew with Edward's syndrome had to get on a freaking Ryanair flight and spend two days away from their three year old to terminate their pregancy. Their baby had no brain.

Late-term terminations are the most demonised but the people availing of them are those whose children are dying (or even dead) and have no quality of life. I was shocked by reading accounts of Dr Tiller's patients in the US - they were all women who wanted children desperately but whose children were dying inside them.

I am presently trying to concieve so believe me I know about how wanted children are. But I could never force somebody to carry a foetus for four more months, getting bigger and bigger, while they knew the child had no brain and would die upon birth. It's inhuman to force that upon a woman... the people asking as you got bigger... my God. No. Never. Noone should be forced to do that.

John Mason

PopUp wrote: »

+ 1000. Two years ago a couple I knew with Edward's syndrome had to get on a freaking Ryanair flight and spend two days away from their three year old to terminate their pregancy. Their baby had no brain.

thats the same thing that was wrong with my friends baby, i couldnt think of the name last night