1216 packs of abortion pills seized in 2009

Chuchoter

Napper Hawkins, you are the only person who seems to be finding Einhard's way of arguing that offensive. We've been here since last night and nothing he's said so far has come across to me as fascist.

In any case, congenital analgesia is very rare, and whenever dealing with fetal medicine you are working in assumptions and guesswork. Same problem arises with testing for Down Syndrome, they might not have it but the pregnancy is terminated anyway.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I wonder is there any chance abortion's illegality leads to more dead babies.

Say it was legal, and a girl goes into the clinic, discusses the situation with a doctor/counsellor and thinks, oh god I can't do this, decides against and gets the bus home.

If that girl went to a clinic in London she'll probably have spent a few hundred quid getting there, possibly borrowed.

Then she gets truck with the same objection to the abortion, except she can't get the bus home, she knows if she changes her mind she'can't afford to come over again. So has the abortion.

Don't know if it would offset the amount who would have them here if available but worth thinking about.

Chuchoter

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I wonder is there any chance abortion's illegality leads to more dead babies.

Say it was legal, and a girl goes into the clinic, discusses the situation with a doctor/counsellor and thinks, oh god I can't do this, decides against and gets the bus home.

If that girl went to a clinic in London she'll probably have spent a few hundred quid getting there, possibly borrowed.

Then she gets truck with the same objection to the abortion, except she can't get the bus home, she knows if she changes her mind she'can't afford to come over again. So has the abortion.

Don't know if it would offset the amount who would have them here if available but worth thinking about.

Probably, in America you can back out at any time and just go home, maybe come back next week when you have thought it over (or not come back). If you're in London its now or never.

storm2811

Woo hoo! an abortion thread!
I've been saving this pic especially for this moment.

storm2811

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I wonder is there any chance abortion's illegality leads to more dead babies.

Say it was legal, and a girl goes into the clinic, discusses the situation with a doctor/counsellor and thinks, oh god I can't do this, decides against and gets the bus home.

If that girl went to a clinic in London she'll probably have spent a few hundred quid getting there, possibly borrowed.

Then she gets truck with the same objection to the abortion, except she can't get the bus home, she knows if she changes her mind she'can't afford to come over again. So has the abortion.

Don't know if it would offset the amount who would have them here if available but worth thinking about.

Good point, but there is a load of help here for pregnant women who are unsure on what to do.
I was talking to a woman from Cura last week and she was lovely, she was talking about some of the cases she had and the services they offer, they're really quite good.(I'm not pregnant, she was in our school for mental health week.)

I know that if I were to get pregnant now though, I would talk to my doctor, a counsellor, help services etc, before just hopping on a plane to get an abortion.

I see what you mean though about feeling they have no choice when they get there but then again just deciding to get an abortion without discussing first wouldn't be too wise.

I'm pro choice btw and would fully support the idea of abortion becoming legal here.

oompaloompa

Someone made a point a few posts ago about it being now or never after making the journey to the UK. It's bloody expensive to get over there so for a lot of people it is now or never.

You're in the clinic, and there are niggling doubts in the back of your mind, but you know you have a flight home that evening, and you don't have the option of sleeping on it... you go ahead with it without being 100% sure of what you're doing.

I'm certain that in some cases, if the clinic was an hour drive from you in Ireland, and the option of taking a few more days to think was there, then abortion wouldn't be the route some would take.

But hey, hindsight gives you 20/20 vision right?

philologos

Thaedydal wrote: »

Claptrap.
The M.A.P. is not an abortifacient, if it was it would be illegal.

It would be illegal if the State defined the MAP as an abortifacient. As drkpower mentioned what the State defines as an abortifacient may well be quite different to what others would define as one. If a fully fused zygote is destroyed as a result of not lining in the womb, I would personally see this as an abortifacient. That is if one genuinely holds to conception as the beginning of human life.

storm2811 wrote: »

Woo hoo! an abortion thread!
I've been saving this pic especially for this moment.

There are people ignorant enough to compare a fertilised embryo with an unfertilised egg? The author of that image needs to go back to the drawing board.

The reasonable comparison with an unfertilised egg isn't an embryo, but rather the unfertilised ova.

FoxT

Originally Posted by Thaedydal
Claptrap.
The M.A.P. is not an abortifacient, if it was it would be illegal.


Ummm, more claptrap!
- FoxT

Nevyn

drkpower wrote: »

It's not illegal because the pre-implantation embryo is not the 'unborn' for the purposes of our constitution and has no protection in Irish law (or at least noone knows if it has any protection).

Whether it is an abortifacient depends on what you define as an abortion and what you define as a pregnancy, and that debate could go on all night. But that is a painful useless debate.

Medically and legally a woman is not pregnant until the embryo has implanted.
There for the morning after pill does not end a pregnancy there for it does not cause an abortion which legally is an action taken to end a pregnancy.

This is the medical and legal stand point on it in this country.

philologos

It would appear that life beginning at conception and the legal or medical point of pregnancy differ. Not in any way an obstacle to the view that the MAP is an abortifacient. Indeed I thought that contraceptives generally prevented conception.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

It would appear that life beginning at conception and the legal or medical point of pregnancy differ. Not in any way an obstacle to the view that the MAP is an abortifacient. Indeed I thought that contraceptives generally prevented conception.

And MAP is emergency contraception

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

And MAP is emergency contraception

Personally I'd distinguish between preventing conception - contraception and the destruction of the fused zygote which is pretty much a very early abortion.

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally I'd distinguish between preventing conception - contraception and the destruction of the fused zygote which is pretty much a very early abortion.

Do you know how the MAP works Jakkass? Do you know what it does?

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally I'd distinguish between preventing conception - contraception and the destruction of the fused zygote which is pretty much a very early abortion.

Maybe you should go check up on how it works again

Depending on where you are in your menstrual cycle, the morning-after pill can prevent or delay ovulation, block fertilization, or keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Don't take the morning-after pill if you're already pregnant.

drkpower

Thaedydal wrote: »

Medically and legally a woman is not pregnant until the embryo has implanted.
There for the morning after pill does not end a pregnancy there for it does not cause an abortion which legally is an action taken to end a pregnancy.

This is the medical and legal stand point on it in this country.

I dont think so.

I am not aware of any cases where the legal definition of the word 'pregnancy' has been directly considered. If you know of one, you might let me know. But Adrian Hardiman certainly doesnt belive that pregnancy is defined as post-implantation only as is clear from a line in his judgment in Roche v Roche:

'This leads me to believe that the temporal scope of the sub-Article is, and was intended to be, the period of a pregnancy when the unborn life has been implanted in the mother’s womb and is developing there'.

He was referring to what the 'unborn' means in A. 40.3.3 & clearly he envisages it applying to a period of a pregnancy after implantation which suggests that he believes there is a 'period of a pregnancy' other than post-implantation.

As for the medical position in Ireland, I am also not sure where you get the idea that the Irish medical community has taken a position on when pregnancy begins. Do you have a link to a position statement by the IOG/RCOG or some such body?

I am pretty sure they have never taken a formal position on it. But for what its worth, you might consider that most major obstetric hospitals run 'Early Pregnancy Units' where they routinely use a blood test called EPF (Early Pregnancy Factor) to tell people whether they are pregnant or not.

Edit: Of course, EPF is also called ECF (Early Conception Factor) but when it comes up positive, people who go to these units are usually told they are pregnant!

philologos

bluewolf if you read my previous posts I made clear mention of it preventing the zygote from lining. My point is that life has already begun. Therefore this destroys life rather than preventing conception. It is therefore an abortifacient.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

bluewolf if you read my previous posts I made clear mention of it preventing the zygote from lining. My point is that life has already begun. Therefore this destroys life rather than preventing conception. It is therefore an abortifacient.

Right, but only sometimes. Sometimes it serves to prevent ovulation or the fertilization happening at all.

strobe

bluewolf wrote: »

Right, but only sometimes. Sometimes it serves to prevent ovulation or the fertilization happening at all.

What MAP is used in Ireland Blue? I know they use Levonelle in the UK and if it's the same here then it's a levonorgestrel only drug. Levonorgestrel's primary method of action is through prevention or delaying ovulation (thereby preventing fertilisation/contraception) and the most recent research such as that carried out by the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics and the International Consortium for Emergency Contraception seems to suggest that levonorgestrel has no implantation prevention method of action at all.

coffee_cake

strobe wrote: »

What MAP is used in Ireland Blue? I know they use Levonelle in the UK and if it's the same here then it's a levonorgestrel only drug. Levonorgestrel's primary method of action is through prevention or delaying ovulation (thereby preventing fertilisation/contraception) and the most recent research such as that carried out by the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics and the International Consortium for Emergency Contraception seems to suggest that levonorgestrel has no implantation prevention method of action at all.

I don't know, I'll have a look later when not on work computer. Meant to look this up last night but got home late.

drkpower

strobe wrote: »

What MAP is used in Ireland Blue? I know they use Levonelle in the UK and if it's the same here then it's a levonorgestrel only drug. Levonorgestrel's primary method of action is through prevention or delaying ovulation (thereby preventing fertilisation/contraception) and the most recent research such as that carried out by the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics and the International Consortium for Emergency Contraception seems to suggest that levonorgestrel has no implantation prevention method of action at all.

Levonelle and another new one whose name escapes me at the moment (and which works for up to 5 days). Both have a implantation prevention/discouragement function but both are thought not to 'dislodge' an implanted embryo. But there is some doubt in this area. This is what Levonelle's SPC says about its action:


The precise mode of action of Levonelle 1500 is not known. At the recommended regimen, levonorgestrel is thought to work mainly by preventing ovulation and fertilisation if intercourse has taken place in the preovulatory phase, when the likelihood of fertilisation is the highest. It may also cause endometrial changes that discourage implantation. Levonelle 1500 is not effective once the process of implantation has begun.

strobe

drkpower wrote: »

Levonelle and another new one whose name escapes me at the moment (and which works for up to 5 days). Both have a implantation prevention/discouragement function but both are thought not to 'dislodge' an implanted embryo. But there is some doubt in this area. This is what Levonelle's SPC says about its action:


The precise mode of action of Levonelle 1500 is not known. At the recommended regimen, levonorgestrel is thought to work mainly by preventing ovulation and fertilisation if intercourse has taken place in the preovulatory phase, when the likelihood of fertilisation is the highest. It may also cause endometrial changes that discourage implantation. Levonelle 1500 is not effective once the process of implantation has begun.

It appears to be pretty up in the air alright. But any recent research seems to be coming down very heavily on the side that suggests levonorgestrel is ineffective post-fertilisation.

The Division of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Karolinska Institue in Sweden had this to say about their research into it. "When summarized, available data from studies in humans indicate that the contraceptive effects of both levonorgestrel and mifepristone, when used in single low doses for emergency contraception, involve either blockade or delay of ovulation, due to either prevention or delay of the LH surge, rather than to inhibition of implantation."


The International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics about their research "inhibition or delay of ovulation should be their primary and possibly only mechanism of action. Review of the evidence suggests that LNG-ECPs cannot prevent implantation".

Chilean Institute For Reproductive Medicine"Studies searching for possible alterations of the endometrium at the time implantation would normally take place, found minimal changes of doubtful significance. Recent studies in animals cast serious doubts that LNG prevents pregnancy by interfering with post-fertilization events. Failure to prevent expected pregnancies is close to 25% in women, and this is likely to be accounted for entirely by treatment given too late to prevent fertilization. The exact mode of action of HEC remains undetermined."

optogirl

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Regardless of whether you agree with abortions or not, you can't allow unregulated medicine from unqualified people.

Absolutely, but what it does point to is a high demand.

Shiraz 4.99

I laughed this year when the figures showing a continuing reduction in women traveling to the UK this year for abortions was met with glee by the pro-life groups.
If the detection rate for these tablets are anything like the detection rate for Chinese android phones & tablets I regularly try to sneak past customs then easily 80% are getting through, probably more cause of the package size & EU addresses.
The elephant in the room is that more women are having these illegal home abortions than are traveling to the UK for the professional procedure.
The scare stories don't seem to working & at this stage even if an early stage abortion clinic were to get the go ahead in the south they would find themselves competing against an established black market with a fraction of the cost.

suicide_circus

What form does this established black market take? Old crones peddling abortion pills down Moore St?

The_Valeyard

The powers of the Necro-thread are strong here.
All hail the necronomicon!!!!!!!

darkpagandeath

My local Pharmacist supply's the morning after pill without seeing the doctor, You need to go in for a consultation though with the pharmacist.

strobe

Has anyone else noticed all the stickers that have been put up around Dublin with the website address of an organisation that will post out abortion pills to your country so you can do a DIY job?

Any of them appearing in other towns/counties?

Thoughts? Good thing/bad thing?

eviltwin

strobe wrote: »

Has anyone else noticed all the stickers that have been put up around Dublin with the website address of an organisation that will post out abortion pills to your country so you can do a DIY job?

Thoughts? Good thing/bad thing?

I'd imagine the risks come with the abortion being incomplete. When a miscarriage happens its vital to get a check up to make sure no tissue has been left behind. If it has it needs to come out or it can lead to serious health problems. I guess the implication is that women who take these pills in secret may not get follow up care and that is what puts their health at risk rather than the pills themselves. No one should take medicine without supervision but I guess some women are so desperate they feel they have no choice.