Does anyone feel insulted by the abortion proposals?

manual_man

Macha wrote: »

No you didn't - you made a series of dogmatic statements with nothing to back them up.

You're just obstinant to the truths i laid out. My arguments were perfectly clear in my o.p., if you wish to argue otherwise then find something i've said and disprove it

Lyaiera

manual_man wrote: »

More to the point, give evidence of how you CAN ascertain if someone is suicidal

can you?

Because they're doctors who regularly write reports that would mention if someone was suicidal. It's what they do every day of the week.

manual_man

Lyaiera wrote: »

Because they're doctors who regularly write reports that would mention if someone was suicidal. It's what they do every day of the week.

that's absolute nonsense. it's not something that can be quantified. they can ascertain that a person might be showing suicidal tendencies, but that in no way means that they're going to actually attempt suicide

Macha

manual_man wrote: »

More to the point, give evidence of how you CAN ascertain if someone is suicidal

can you?

Um answer the question.

manual_man wrote: »

You're just obstinant to the truths i laid out. My arguments were perfectly clear in my o.p., if you wish to argue otherwise then find something i've said and disprove it

No, if you make a claim, be prepared to back it up. Basic tenet of debating.

stinkle

username123 wrote: »

It was also as though she had no concept of the mental torture that the bad news had already brought would be compounded by her crazy perinatal hospices idea.

Mad stuff. Why should anyone have to carry a pregnancy to term like that. I'm not totally well informed on pregnancy matters, but would delivering a baby that might live for a few minutes/days not be much crueller than terminating early in the pregnancy? Those few minutes/days could be agony for the baby (and might be awful in the womb too, sorry I have no knowledge of how conscious they are in the last few weeks and don't want to put forward an argument in case I'm wrong).

Perinatal hospice sounds crazy when you consider how few women would be likely to use one, especially for a few months! Imagine if you already have young kids for example, how is it reasonable to abandon them for an extended period.

username123

manual_man wrote: »

then find something i've said and disprove it

The below is totally wrong.

manual_man wrote: »

at the end the government bowed to pressure from the aggressive pro-choice population and this is why we're seeing this debate/legislation.

Please educate yourself.

Macha

manual_man wrote: »

that's absolute nonsense. it's not something that can be quantified. they can ascertain that a person might be showing suicidal tendencies, but that in no way means that they're going to actually attempt suicide

Right so let's just wait until the probability reaches 1, ie they commit suicide. Congratulations on your horrific, disgusting, misogynistic proposal.

username123

stinkle wrote: »

Perinatal hospice sounds crazy when you consider how few women would be likely to use one, especially for a few months! Imagine if you already have young kids for example, how is it reasonable to abandon them for an extended period.

I know. Other children, a mortgage, a pet, a job - any one of a number of reasons why someone would not want to do this besides the torture aspect.

Lyaiera

manual_man wrote: »

that's absolute nonsense. it's not something that can be quantified. they can ascertain that a person might be showing suicidal tendencies, but that in no way means that they're going to actually attempt suicide

Do you understand what "risk" means. If there's a risk to the life of the mother. Being suicidal means there's a risk of suicide. What you're implying is that doctors should only work with people who have already swallowed 50 sleeping tablets. "Sure they only went to five different pharmacies to get the lethal does. It doesn't mean they'll actually take them!"

Macha wrote: »

Right so let's just wait until the probability reaches 1, ie they commit suicide. Congratulations on your horrific, disgusting, misogynistic proposal.

Ah in fairness now. He wasn't misogynistic in that specific case. He was misanthropic. He thinks helping people who are suicidal is pointless because they might be ok in the end. So he hates people, not just women.

wolfpawnat

stinkle wrote: »

Mad stuff. Why should anyone have to carry a pregnancy to term like that. I'm not totally well informed on pregnancy matters, but would delivering a baby that might live for a few minutes/days not be much crueller than terminating early in the pregnancy? Those few minutes/days could be agony for the baby (and might be awful in the womb too, sorry I have no knowledge of how conscious they are in the last few weeks and don't want to put forward an argument in case I'm wrong).

Perinatal hospice sounds crazy when you consider how few women would be likely to use one, especially for a few months! Imagine if you already have young kids for example, how is it reasonable to abandon them for an extended period.

In my opinion, worse even than the carrying it to term and waiting to go through the pain of birth and waiting to hear it is dead, is the "Oh, you never said you were pregnant" "when is it due" "Do you know what you are having" "Are your other children excited" "Is this your first" "You must be so excited" day in, day out, I would be suicidal from that alone.

I get asked these questions daily now I have a large baby bump, by people I know and random people even at bus stops, if I had to smile and pretend everything was okay, or have to tell them it was not a viable baby, I would not be able to go on. It is a faith equal to the most horrific mental torture in my eyes.

rainbow kirby

I find the description of "aggressive pro-choice" pretty amusing tbh...

Who made anonymous phone calls?
Who waves around gory pictures?
Who gets up in people's faces about it?
Who is more interested in control than actual healthcare and support of women?

One guess, and I'll give you a hint - it ain't the pro-choice or even the undecided side of things.

Lingua Franca

manual_man wrote: »

You're just obstinant to the truths i laid out. My arguments were perfectly clear in my o.p., if you wish to argue otherwise then find something i've said and disprove it

Challenge accepted.

manual_man wrote: »

i love the way the pro-choice folk continually harp on about the hypothetical situations that are in the tiny minority. if pregnancies are carried out to birth, the vast majority are born healthy, living, breathing, and healthy. just like most of us on here are

Had you been paying attention, you'd have noticed that people were not "continually harping on" about "hypothetical situations" "that are in the tiny minority" - firstly, everyone here was talking about a very real case that was discussed on television last night. Secondly, are these situations hypothetical or real? You seem confused about that. Believe me, it's very real to the women to which it happens - should they stop "harping on" about it too?

i find this whole debate/legislation a joke tbh. Savita's death was down to nothing but terrible medical practice and care. there was nothing in the law as it stands to stop the medical staff giving Savita the care she deserved and carrying out a termination to save her life. terrible medical care, simple as.

Inquest says different. What do you know that they don't?

it could have happened to anyone with a serious complication, pregnant or otherwise

If you went to hospital with a shrapnel wound, would you expect them to remove the shrapnel to prevent infection? I'll go ahead and assume you'd respond yes, since the very best way to treat an infection is by first removing the source of the infection.

at the end the government bowed to pressure from the aggressive pro-choice population and this is why we're seeing this debate/legislation.

At the end the government bowed to pressure from the European Court of Human Rights.

the inclusion of a stipulation to include pregnant women who feel suicidal is just farcical to be honest,

No, the inclusion of a stipulation to include pregnant women who feel suicical is the mandate of the people to legislate for X.

and i don't for a second take suicide lightly, indeed it's something that i've had to deal with first-hand. first off, there's NO way to determine if a person is suicidal or not. it's just not possible.

Yeah, it's not like anyone has ever presented with depression, psychosis and suicide attempts or admitted feeling suicidal. Ever. In the whole history of ever.

Utter rot.

we don't know if any one person will attempt suicide or not. and we never will. the way some people go on you'd think having an abortion will make a person's suicidal ideations go away. anyone with even a semblance of understanding of mental health issues will know this is not the case.

Again, are you claiming to be more informed than health professionals?

in fact it could even be argued that a person's suicidal ideations could increase by having an abortion, a realization of what they've done coupled with their already fragile state of mind could literally send them over the edge...

Indeed, it could be argued. And, in fact, has been. By educated professionals. The risk has been deemed to be negligible.

the issue of mental health/suicide is far too complex/sensitive to involve abortion as some kind of possible solution i believe.

Well, we've now seen that a lot of what you believe is misinformed nonsense.

imo the focus should be to save ALL life, as it has been all along until this farcical debate.

So are you in favour of preventing pregnant women from travelling?

although it has to be said, from the government's perspective, this debate has taken the spotlight off our continuing dire economic situation, for which i'm sure they're grateful

Ah, thankfully the rest of us can keep more than one issue in our silly little heads at once and newspapers publish more than one story at a time.

wolfpawnat

rainbow kirby wrote: »

I find the description of "aggressive pro-choice" pretty amusing tbh...

Who made anonymous phone calls?
Who waves around gory pictures?
Who gets up in people's faces about it?
Who is more interested in control than actual healthcare and support of women?

One guess, and I'll give you a hint - it ain't the pro-choice or even the undecided side of things.

I find myself píssed off every time I go into the city and see the more aggressive groups from each side out and about. Handing out leaflets and asking people to sign petitions is fine, grand.

But I do not want my 4 year old son seeing dead and mutilated foetus' that clearly are developed enough that he can recognise what they are and asking me what is wrong with the baby only for some lunatic to tell him that the baby is dead because it's mother didn't want it.

And I do not want men coming over to me and pretty much yelling into mine and my child's face that it is "only a woman's choice" (why he was saying this to me then I will never know) and that "I should not have kids unless I want to" Which are very good arguments, yes, but don't yell it at me and don't look disgustedly at my child who has a clear comprehension of the English language as you yell it!

Both sides have arguments, and some aspects are very valid, but I hate it when they go extremist and ram it down mine and everyone elses throat and call you stupid if you don't agree with them.

Morag

wolfpawnat wrote: »

And I do not want men coming over to me and pretty much yelling into mine and my child's face that it is "only a woman's choice" (why he was saying this to me then I will never know) and that "I should not have kids unless I want to" Which are very good arguments, yes, but don't yell it at me and don't look disgustedly at my child who has a clear comprehension of the English language as you yell it!

Both sides have arguments, and some aspects are very valid, but I hate it when they go extremist and ram it down mine and everyone elses throat and call you stupid if you don't agree with them.

wolfpawnat any chance you could tell me where abouts and when this happened?

There are several groups who run street stalls as they are called, any of the ones I have been involved with have been respectful, but unfortunately there are some leftwing more extreme parties who run them as well.

wolfpawnat

Morag wrote: »

wolfpawnat any chance you could tell me where abouts and when this happened?

There are several groups who run street stalls as they are called, any of the ones I have been involved with have been respectful, but unfortunately there are some leftwing more extreme parties who run them as well.

Well the pro-life ones were outside the GPO, I love bringing my son there as his father and I are very interested in Irish history, so having them there really gets me píssed off:mad: main street of the country and all the tourists see are dead foetus's and people saying "An abortion is NEVER necessary to save a mothers life" (didn't realise these people were oncologists, psychiatrists, etc) :rolleyes:

The pro-choice lad I was fit to go Mike Tyson on was outside the Bank of Ireland in College Green, it would have been about February when the Savita case was really in the news and they were discussing the X case legislation being finalized. There were 3 lads at the stall, no women, which I found a little odd, but as I said before, men seem more pro-choice than a lot of women. About student age or over 20-25ish.

Morag

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Well the pro-life ones were outside the GPO, I love bringing my son there as his father and I are very interested in Irish history, so having them there really gets me píssed off:mad: main street of the country and all the tourists see are dead foetus's and people saying "An abortion is NEVER necessary to save a mothers life" (didn't realise these people were oncologists, psychiatrists, etc) :rolleyes:

The pro-choice lad I was fit to go Mike Tyson on was outside the Bank of Ireland in College Green, it would have been about February when the Savita case was really in the news and they were discussing the X case legislation being finalized. There were 3 lads at the stall, no women, which I found a little odd, but as I said before, men seem more pro-choice than a lot of women. About student age or over 20-25ish.

Any of the ARC stalls or choice Ireland stalls I have seen always have women on them or a mix of women and men. The only time I have seen a stall which has been men only has been socialist workers party and well they will just about hijack any cause.

wolfpawnat

Morag wrote: »

Any of the ARC stalls or choice Ireland stalls I have seen always have women on them or a mix of women and men. The only time I have seen a stall which has been men only has been socialist workers party and well they will just about hijack any cause.

True :rolleyes: Being a left-winger I have noticed

As I said, I will choose myself whether or not to take literature or sign petitions, and I would be that way on anything, be it fur protesters, household charges, etc. But coming over and showing my young child dead babies or saying I shouldn't have to have children if I don't want while looking down at my son in a way that made him clearly uncomfortable is NOT okay in my book.

OldNotWIse

Observing abortion one-upmanship threads on a Friday evening is amusing. Some people need to get out more. These threads go on and f*cking on and on and on...and nobody ever changes their mind. The ultimate goal seems to be to insult the other "side". Childish carry on.

I will make one point, a friend of my best mate had to travel to the UK for an abortion when she found out her child had multiple deformities and organs growing outside the body etc. Poor thing would not have survived, and likely would have suffered. She had to sneak the body home in the boot of her car, like a criminal because our arséd up system let her down. Talk about compounding her grief. This system, I do not agree with.

sunshine and showers

manual_man wrote: »

i love the way the pro-choice folk continually harp on about the hypothetical situations that are in the tiny minority. if pregnancies are carried out to birth, the vast majority are born healthy, living, breathing, and healthy. just like most of us on here are

Just because something happens rarely, doesn't mean it should be ignored. Yes, there are lots of healthy babies born every year in Ireland, but does that mean we should ignore those pregnancies that are not going to end in such a happy way? Should we sweep those poor parents under the rug and pretend they don't exist?

i find this whole debate/legislation a joke tbh. Savita's death was down to nothing but terrible medical practice and care. there was nothing in the law as it stands to stop the medical staff giving Savita the care she deserved and carrying out a termination to save her life. terrible medical care, simple as. it could have happened to anyone with a serious complication, pregnant or otherwise

You are factually incorrect here. It is exactly because there is no legislation on this matter that medical professionals do not carry out terminations to save women's lives. Doctors do not know what would be classified as a "legal" abortion in a court of law. In attempting to save someone's life, a doctor could perform a necessary abortion and then be sued by the mother for terminating her pregnancy, and risk being struck off for making an incorrect decision. There is no reference guide for medical professionals on when they can perform an abortion, so in reality, they don't perform them even when they are legal/necessary.

at the end the government bowed to pressure from the aggressive pro-choice population and this is why we're seeing this debate/legislation.

No, the government decided to finally legislate for something that has been the law of Ireland under the constitution, but ignored, for 21 years.

the inclusion of a stipulation to include pregnant women who feel suicidal is just farcical to be honest, and i don't for a second take suicide lightly, indeed it's something that i've had to deal with first-hand.

No, it's the law. The right to access an abortion in the case of suicidal ideation was found to be a right under the constitution of Ireland. Two attempts to remove it as a right have failed.
You can think it's farcical all you like, but the Constitution has more weight than your opinion as an individual. I'm sorry, but that's the reality of the situation.

first off, there's NO way to determine if a person is suicidal or not. it's just not possible. we don't know if any one person will attempt suicide or not. and we never will. the way some people go on you'd think having an abortion will make a person's suicidal ideations go away. anyone with even a semblance of understanding of mental health issues will know this is not the case. in fact it could even be argued that a person's suicidal ideations could increase by having an abortion, a realization of what they've done coupled with their already fragile state of mind could literally send them over the edge... the issue of mental health/suicide is far too complex/sensitive to involve abortion as some kind of possible solution i believe. imo the focus should be to save ALL life, as it has been all along until this farcical debate. although it has to be said, from the government's perspective, this debate has taken the spotlight off our continuing dire economic situation, for which i'm sure they're grateful

The purpose of this legislation is to attempt to figure out how it can be determined if someone is suicidal or not. The government does not have a choice about whether to include that provision. It is a right under the constitution that has been reaffirmed by the public twice in the last twenty years.

The focus thus far has not been on saving all life, it has been on burying heads in the sand to ignore the issue. Sometimes when people get pregnant they are not destined to have the happy ending that you seem to think accompanies all pregnancy. We have to figure out how to help those people with compassion and understanding. This is not abortion-on-demand legislation. This is legislation to help people who are in tragic circumstances.

wolfpawnat

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I will make one point, a friend of my best mate had to travel to the UK for an abortion when she found out her child had multiple deformities and organs growing outside the body etc etc. Poor thing would not have survived, and likely would have suffered. She had to sneak the body home in the boot of her car, like a criminal. Talk about compounding her grief. This system, I do not agree with.

Those women on the LLS before, having to go abroad to get abortions on their dying children, then having to ship them home at even greater cost, sickens me to the core! :mad: things were bad enough without adding more financial and emotional pain on them! Your poor friend Words cannot describe what she must have been feeling!

Morag

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I will make one point, a friend of my best mate had to travel to the UK for an abortion when she found out her child had multiple deformities and organs growing outside the body etc. Poor thing would not have survived, and likely would have suffered. She had to sneak the body home in the boot of her car, like a criminal because our arséd up system let her down. Talk about compounding her grief. This system, I do not agree with.

then I do hope you will contact your TDs and tell them that you don't agree with the system and the laws which force women to do this.

http://www.whoismytd.com/

OldNotWIse

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Those women on the LLS before, having to go abroad to get abortions on their dying children, then having to ship them home at even greater cost, sickens me to the core! :mad: things were bad enough without adding more financial and emotional pain on them! Your poor friend Words cannot describe what she must have been feeling!

The whole thign is just so sad. They have a little girl already and were so excited to be having another baby. It's always the "hard cases" that get caught in the legal limbo and suffer the most.

wolfpawnat

OldNotWIse wrote: »

The whole thign is just so sad. They have a little girl already and were so excited to be having another baby. It's always the "hard cases" that get caught in the legal limbo and suffer the most.

Well why Fatal Foetal Abnormalities is not legislated for I am sure everyone is baffled by. I would assume there is no sane person alive that would dispute that particular reason for abortion. Though I have heard one or two extremist pro-lifers saying "Well the doctors could be wrong and you could kill a perfect little baby" :rolleyes:

As a mother and as a currently pregnant woman, if I were told that the baby was not viable and I had the option to terminate and bury it without having to go any further in the pregnancy, it would be a fairly short conversation with himself! When I was getting my 22 week scan we discussed what we would do if there were severe abnormalities and yes, abortion was very much on the cards. Any parents should have the right to if they and their child are going to have a horrific quality of life. I rather quality to quantity personally!

FouxDaFaFa

Ms D has waived her anonymity to make a statement about her experience of having to travel after hearing about a fatal abnormality.

manual_man

Macha wrote: »

Right so let's just wait until the probability reaches 1, ie they commit suicide. Congratulations on your horrific, disgusting, misogynistic proposal.

4 recorded cases of suicide by pregnant women in 25 years. better that was 0, but it's not. How many lives do you think will be lost to abortion in the next 25 years with the new legislation? Just, you know, so we can get a better grip on the saving lives thing

username123

manual_man wrote: »

4 recorded cases of suicide by pregnant women in 25 years. better that was 0, but it's not. How many lives do you think will be lost to abortion in the next 25 years with the new legislation? Just, you know, so we can get a better grip on the saving lives thing

None. A life is not a cluster of cells. No more so than your finger has its own life.

Also - can you give a reputable source for your figures?

Macha

manual_man wrote: »

4 recorded cases of suicide by pregnant women in 25 years. better that was 0, but it's not. How many lives do you think will be lost to abortion in the next 25 years with the new legislation? Just, you know, so we can get a better grip on the saving lives thing

You're ignoring those averted by going to the UK. And the whole point of the legislation is to save both lives so the correct answer is "less than if the legislation hadn't been passed".

manual_man

username123 wrote: »

None. A life is not a cluster of cells. No more so than your finger has its own life.

Also - can you give a reputable source for your figures?

life has to start somewhere does it not?

source - i heard it on the Pat Kenny show i can't remember who

username123

manual_man wrote: »

life has to start somewhere does it not?

source - i heard it on the Pat Kenny show i can't remember who

A clump of cells does not have more of a right to life than the woman carrying them has over the autonomy of her own body.

Was it from Patricia Caseys non scientific biased report (that is not peer reviewed and has been discredited academically) that was actually referring to the cases of UK maternal suicide between 2006 and 2008? Because it sounds like the figure she used.

manual_man

Macha wrote: »

You're ignoring those averted by going to the UK. And the whole point of the legislation is to save both lives so the correct answer is "less than if the legislation hadn't been passed".

Now you're just being totally stupid... At least be honest if you have an agenda