Does anyone feel insulted by the abortion proposals?

lazygal

Nice to hear the leader of Ireland assure us women won't be given any extra rights. Can't have us getting too many rights, can we?

lazygal

meeeeh wrote: »

List is completely useless for referndums. You would get a result where each option would get up to 25% and no proper majority. Half the time referndums are won by the side that manages to drag enough sheep who don't even know what they are voting for to the polling stations anyway. Next referndum should offer either legalization of abortion for everyone or nothing. Besides why is abortion less of a murder if your daddy is rapist than if he is law abiding citizen (for those who are on the pro life side)? There is no such distinction after you are born.

I agree, the circumstances of conception should have nothing to do with whether a woman 'deserves' access to abortion.

wolfpawnat

meeeeh wrote: »

List is completely useless for referndums. You would get a result where each option would get up to 25% and no proper majority. Half the time referndums are won by the side that manages to drag enough sheep who don't even know what they are voting for to the polling stations anyway. Next referndum should offer either legalization of abortion for everyone or nothing. Besides why is abortion less of a murder if your daddy is rapist than if he is law abiding citizen (for those who are on the pro life side)? There is no such distinction after you are born.

For me personally, because of the circumstances of conception. Rape is a horrific ordeal, the mother never consented to sex. To ask her to carry a child from that is only adding to her ordeal. It's not the foetus's fault, it never asked to be conceived, but to expect a woman to try and move on with her life while carrying an animal's child in her and then give birth to it, I think is cruel.

We all know when we have sex, there is a chance of pregnancy. We're not stupid, we all try to take measures. But when a woman does not even get to have that much of a say, well how could you expect her to?

I know that isn't acceptable to you lazygal, and that is your prerogative, and you have a right to it. It's just like that to me. But as I said, I don't think my opinion should hinder others access to these facilities.

wonderfulname

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Very true. We need to cover everything such as incest, chemo treatment, non-viability, etc, but how do we do it without listing them. It's all so bloody complicated.

I would say by allowing abortion where there is a threat to the health of the mother, or where she feels it is the correct course of action for her at the time after consultation with some nice unbiased advisory person.

Why list? It seems crazy to try to pass judgement on how a woman should or should not respond to various senarios, equally crazy to prescribe a value to the foetus in some situations but ignore it in others. This whole debate just baffles me.

wolfpawnat

wonderfulname wrote: »

I would say by allowing abortion where there is a threat to the health of the mother, or where she feels it is the correct course of action for her at the time after consultation with some nice unbiased advisory person.

Why list? It seems crazy to try to pass judgement on how a woman should or should not respond to various senarios, equally crazy to prescribe a value to the foetus in some situations but ignore it in others. This whole debate just baffles me.

Indeed. Though the true meaning of Pro-Life to me is look after the lives of as many as possible and when a mother is at risk, the foetus, if nonviable outside of utero, should then come second. But that is personal opinion.

I think in many cases a woman feels forced into those situations, I most certainly was. And I worry for them if they are, it is a decision they need to take and with all of the facts and with someone who has nothing to gain from whatever outcome decided.

Also, if she is in a relationship, the partner should get some say. After all it affects him too. That said of course, only one of the two carries the child. But he should have a say, although if he's a bullying a*hole forcing his choice (whatever it may be) on her, I'd like 5 min alone with the fécker!

I think abortion is one of those few debates that will always be murky water. People give out about certain things like equal pay and same sex marriage (both should exist without any sort of discussion in my opinion, they are basic human rights) but this is one that is really hard as there are so many things to be factored.

username123

lazygal wrote: »

I agree, the circumstances of conception should have nothing to do with whether a woman 'deserves' access to abortion.

Yes, I agree with this. About lists and referenda, I literally have no idea how the electorate of this country feels with regards to abortion and more importantly - neither do the government. So all this insulting messing around re 6 doctors, no extra rights etc... is probably not reflective of what the people of this country actually want.

So why not just ask the people instead of trying to legislate for a 20 year old case where public opinion has changed in the meantime and all this faffing about with insulting ideas is totally irrelevant.

wonderfulname

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I think in many cases a woman feels forced into those situations, I most certainly was. And I worry for them if they are, it is a decision they need to take and with all of the facts and with someone who has nothing to gain from whatever outcome decided.

Which is only right with any medical procedure, I think the potential for uninformed, forced decisions stems largely from the fact abortion is illegal and hushed up, were there proper structures in place it would surely be easier to look after all involved.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Also, if she is in a relationship, the partner should get some say. After all it affects him too. That said of course, only one of the two carries the child. But he should have a say, although if he's a bullying a*hole forcing his choice (whatever it may be) on her, I'd like 5 min alone with the fécker!

I think that's something within a relationship though, I don't see it as the states place to get involved there (unless you're married and hence have quite literally signed up to that) so I don't wholly understand why it's brought up in relation to civil rights, it's a personal issue, as in if you don't consult your partner on something like that, there's issues there. Is it the states role to legislate for that? I hope not.

wolfpawnat

wonderfulname wrote: »

Which is only right with any medical procedure, I think the potential for uninformed, forced decisions stems largely from the fact abortion is illegal and hushed up, were there proper structures in place it would surely be easier to look after all involved.

I think people are so worried about public opinion of them, they are frightened in many cases to talk about their experiences, or to seek someone to talk to, many women got abortions and are stuck dealing with emotion they wish to talk about, but in many cases feel they will be judged. They need to get any support they need. If the abortion was forced, they may need loss counselling. If they felt it was right and just need to voice their justification then they have the right to do that too. The government haven't a clue on this issue, no one exact numbers on who feels what way about it. I can only assume it is about 50/50. I cannot understand why abortion is so hushed up and people feel the need to sneak around with it "a girls weekend" why should people feel the need to use an excuse?

wonderfulname wrote: »

I think that's something within a relationship though, I don't see it as the states place to get involved there (unless you're married and hence have quite literally signed up to that) so I don't wholly understand why it's brought up in relation to civil rights, it's a personal issue, as in if you don't consult your partner on something like that, there's issues there. Is it the states role to legislate for that? I hope not.

I cannot see how you could ever legislate for that to be honest, nor should it be. Just I feel personally, in a relationship case, the two people should discuss it, but as I stated, only one has to carry the child so ultimately it is her decision. I have seen cases where women feel forced to get an abortion or he'll leave, that is sick. I rather be a single mother than do something my heart was not in. Same with keeping it for his sake. Dear Goodness could you look at the child without resentment, I very much doubt it.

Morag

Because we get called baby murders, people talk about us, shun us, tell thier kids not to play with ours and make all manner of assumptions that is why.

Olivia O'Leary's piece "No place for young women".

http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A20193865%3A83%3A23-04-2013%3A

lazygal

Morag wrote: »

Because we get called baby murders, people talk about us, shun us, tell thier kids not to play with ours and make all manner of assumptions that is why.

Olivia O'Leary's piece "No place for young women".

http://www.rte.ie/radio/utils/radioplayer/rteradioweb.html#!rii=9%3A20193865%3A83%3A23-04-2013%3A

http://www.lucindacreighton.ie/2013/04/25/25-april-2013/

Her response.

Morag

Afghanistan has better abortion laws then we do.

Lucinda is our Minister for EU Affairs but seems to think we should ignore the EU Humans Rights Rulings in regards to legislating for the X Case ruling and seems to think that we can ignore the supreme court and the out come of two referendums, so it doesn't' seem that she believes in democracy and if that is the case she should resign her seat.

FouxDaFaFa

That piece by Olivia O'Leary is great. Scathing but necessary. Creighton's response is disappointing. Very much a "no, everything's fine" wishy-washy response.

She thinks it's a "tolerant" society.

Yes. So tolerant that we tolerate the unnecessary death of a woman because of a technicality.

So tolerant that we tolerate women having no say in whether they continue a pregnancy or not.

So tolerant that we tolerate women being told that their baby will not be born alive. Tolerating them going home and waiting for that baby to die, all the while receiving congratulations on their bump from unknowing strangers. As one woman this happened to described it, a "human coffin".

Ireland is a great country but it is also barbaric.

wolfpawnat

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

That piece by Olivia O'Leary is great. Scathing but necessary. Creighton's response is disappointing. Very much a "no, everything's fine" wishy-washy response.

She thinks it's a "tolerant" society.

Yes. So tolerant that we tolerate the unnecessary death of a woman because of a technicality.

So tolerant that we tolerate women having no say in whether they continue a pregnancy or not.

So tolerant that we tolerate women being told that their baby will not be born alive. Tolerating them going home and waiting for that baby to die, all the while receiving congratulations on their bump from unknowing strangers. As one woman this happened to described it, a "human coffin".

Ireland is a great country but it is also barbaric.

Savita's death was not a lack of abortion, but the lack of communication and medical care. That said she should have been given the option of one when the foetus was deemed to be beyond saving. That goes without saying.

I never heard the term human coffin, but it is terrifyingly apt. Especially when those who decide to end the pregnancy and bury their children have to go abroad and deal with costs and paperwork no person should have to deal with.

I said it in other threads and I'll say it again, Creighton is a f-ing joke and should not be allowed so much as open her mouth on any subject, let alone one as sensitive as this!

Morag wrote: »

Because we get called baby murders, people talk about us, shun us, tell thier kids not to play with ours and make all manner of assumptions that is why.

No one has the right to judge another in that situation. My mother had two, but only because her self obsessed BF said he'd leave if she didn't. Cheated on her left right and center and left her remorseful. Then again, she wasn't a good mother, sometimes I feel they were the lucky ones, but anyway. It is stupid to think that we live in a country that a child would be told not to play with another one because of the decisions a mother made for herself, that in no way affect anyone but her and whoever else was involved.

wonderfulname

Morag wrote: »

Lucinda is our Minister for EU Affairs but seems to think we should ignore the EU Humans Rights Rulings in regards to legislating for the X Case ruling and seems to think that we can ignore the supreme court and the out come of two referendums, so it doesn't' seem that she believes in democracy and if that is the case she should resign her seat.

She winds up in the most pitifully ironic positions, remember when she was FGs equality spokesperson? Not a big fan of equality...

wolfpawnat

wonderfulname wrote: »

She winds up in the most pitifully ironic positions, remember when she was FGs equality spokesperson? Not a big fan of equality...

That had me in stitches most days. I used look forward to her press statements, they were the definition of bigotry.

She is an idiot full stop. How she got so high I will never know. She is the LAST person I would allow speak on sensitive issues, especially ones like this.

AK333

pwurple wrote: »

I disagree with you here. Yes, another referendum, but I don't think all the options can be listed and given to the people to decide upon. It's too subjective and changable. The average case should be legislated for, not the extremes.

What would be on the list?
incest?
rape?
mother requires medical treatment that will do harm, like chemo?
fatal condition?
suicide?

Where does this list end? Trying to list every possible thing that can affect a pregnancy is an impossible task.

Who knows what other unusual cases will be added to it in the future, and more importantly who polices these motivations and decides whether the receipient is worthy of the sought-after abortion?

I consider myself to be personally pro-life, but civically pro-choice (Wouldn't have one myself, but still think it should be available for others). I think it should be legal here without interrogating the motivation, up to a certain gestation.

Counselling and proper medical care should be available before and afterwards to make sure the woman isn't being coerced into it by pimps, family or trafficers, and it is of her own free will... but beyond that, it should be available.

IMO an excellent and balanced post.

I'm pro choice and think that a medical termination of a pregnancy should be available to whoever wants it, regardless of their circumstances and reasons.

This doesn't mean its compulsory!!!! I am not advocating the 'killing of all the babbies' as the pro lifers would have you believe.

Choice means providing options for all

Tigger99

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Savita's death was not a lack of abortion, but the lack of communication and medical care.

There is so much misinformation about this. According to the Irish Times,
Dr Peter Boylan former master of The National Maternity Hospital and an expert witness at Savita's inquest said that his view that without the legal and ethical constraints that doctors must work under, Ms Halappanavar could have been offered a termination on either the Monday or Tuesday of her admission and that this could have saved her life.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/boylan-evidence-brings-further-clarity-to-events-in-death-of-savita-halappanavar-1.1363837

However pro-life activists have chosen to ignore that and say that having abortion available in this country would not have made a difference. I'm not getting at you wolfpawnnat, but your quote is hugely indicative of the deliberate message in the media in realtion to abortion, (or medical termination, which are the words used whem its deemed morally ok.)

Tigger99

And some direct quotes from Dr. Boylan himself.

“There are a number of deficiencies in care . . . none of which, on their own, is likely to have resulted in Ms Halappanavar’s death. Cumulatively, however, they resulted in a delay in appropriate treatment for several hours, and it is well known that each hour of delay in appropriate treatment increases the mortality rate by 6 per cent. Nevertheless, I think there is a strong argument that even if appropriate intervention had commenced in the early hours of October 24th, the outcome would not have been any different.

“The real problem was the inability to terminate the pregnancy prior to Ms Halappanavar developing a real and substantial risk of death. By that time it was effectively too late to save her life.”


The bolding is mine.



http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/politicians-are-still-not-willing-to-take-the-hard-decisions-on-abortion-1.1370046?page=2

Morag

The line up for Tonight with Vincent Browne this evening 11pm http://www.aertv.ie/#tv3

CoraSherlock, solicitor and deputy chairperson for the pro life campaign
Dr Peadar O’Grady psychiatrist and founding member of DoctorsforChoice,
Professor Patricia Casey psychiatrist and patron of the Iona Institute
Professor Veronica O’Keane Perinatal psychiatrist

Macha

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Savita's death was not a lack of abortion, but the lack of communication and medical care.

I don't think that's what came out of the inquest. In reality, Savita needed the abortion before Wednesday but no indicator they could have picked up on Monday or Tuesday would have legally allowed the doctors to carry out the abortion. All she had prior to that was an elevated white blood cell count.

I take your point, and the findings of the inquest, that communication and care could have been better but when someone can deteriorate within the space of two days and we have overstretched medical services humming and hawing over the definition of significant risk to life...well, I'm glad my emigration means I'm likely to not be giving birth to my children in Irish hospitals.

wolfpawnat

Tigger99 wrote: »

However pro-life activists have chosen to ignore that and say that having abortion available in this country would not have made a difference. I'm not getting at you wolfpawnnat, but your quote is hugely indicative of the deliberate message in the media in realtion to abortion, (or medical termination, which are the words used whem its deemed morally ok.)

Well I am basing it on the faults of the hospital, the recommended procedure based on Evidence Based Medicine by the WHO and my time training as a nurse. All I can say is that she SHOULD have gotten the correct drugs and when the baby did not die after 24 hours, she should, under WHO recommendation, have gotten an abortion. It was dying, it suffered unnecessarily as did poor Savita and Praveen, to the detriment of Savita. Though that hospital has to seriously sort out its maternity dept in general from what I have heard and read.

jessicaxxx

I just can not understand this country why do men and these other people have a say in what we do with our own bodies! I just can not understand why abortion is not legal here it is 2013 if someone wants an abortion fine let them have it it is their choice and no one else should have a say and on the other hand a pro life woman if they are so against it dont have one no one is going to force you.

Do these people have any idea what it must be like for these women that have abortions its not a choice made lightly and how dare they judge a woman for a choice she has to make. do the goverment think its ok for women to make a trip to england to have an abortion for personal or medical reasons. this county needs to grow up im ashamed to be a 25 year old woman in this county because of the way we are treated. you never know what you would do until you are in that situation where you might need one.

I think a referndum should be held where only women are aloud to vote because men should not be voting on something that the will never have to experience and i hope the young generation of this county would would yes because we need as a county to move on and get over living in the past for the sake of ourselfs and future generations

charlemont

Even as a man I feel insulted by it. Backwardness affects both sexes. Catholics and their ideology still have far too much say in this country.

happytina

life is not black and white and there should never be a black and white law. women dont decide to abort a baby without a lot of thought. there are so many different circumstances to take into consideration. If my 17 yr old daughter was raped, god forbid. would i want her to have the baby.. not my decision.. would she.. not sure.. if I was raped, as an older woman.. no im sorry to say id not want the baby. If a woman is at risk and she has children at home depending on her.. why put her life at risk.. im not in favor of abortion, but you have to look at each case individual

wolfpawnat

jessicaxxx wrote: »

I think a referndum should be held where only women are aloud to vote because men should not be voting on something that the will never have to experience and i hope the young generation of this county would would yes because we need as a county to move on and get over living in the past for the sake of ourselfs and future generations

Because we live in a democratic republic, and that means everyone gets a say. Referendums cannot take place with only half the country involved.

Yes women have to carry children, women have to do the 10 months of work, but in the vast majority of cases (not all) there are two people in a relationship and they are both the potential parents of the future child, they both should have a say (though the final say on the woman of course). Two people create a child, she did not get there alone.

Besides, pro-choice men are more common from what I have seen these days than pro-life men and women. So I would see them as adding to the pro-choice numbers in a referendum. Do you think a 60 odd year old single farmer from the country would care about a referedum that would not affect him, probably not, but not allowing a 23 year old guy who is pro-choice vote would hinder the cause, surely?

Macha

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Because we live in a democratic republic, and that means everyone gets a say. Referendums cannot take place with only half the country involved.

Yes women have to carry children, women have to do the 10 months of work, but in the vast majority of cases (not all) there are two people in a relationship and they are both the potential parents of the future child, they both should have a say (though the final say on the woman of course). Two people create a child, she did not get there alone.

Besides, pro-choice men are more common from what I have seen these days than pro-life men and women. So I would see them as adding to the pro-choice numbers in a referendum. Do you think a 60 odd year old single farmer from the country would care about a referedum that would not affect him, probably not, but not allowing a 23 year old guy who is pro-choice vote would hinder the cause, surely?

True. I think a lot of us would be really disappointed if we know how many women would vote against more liberal abortion laws. Opinions on this issue are divided moreso along generational lines than gender lines, Lucinda Creighton notwithstanding.

wolfpawnat

Macha wrote: »

True. I think a lot of us would be really disappointed if we know how many women would vote against more liberal abortion laws. Opinions on this issue are divided moreso along generational lines than gender lines, Lucinda Creighton notwithstanding.

I would have to say personally, I know far more pro-life women than men. Actually I only know one pro-life guy under forty, but he is also a devout Catholic and FG supporter, so in all fairness, he's a lost cause in several ways :pac:

I know several women staunch pro-life, only under the most strick of terms should it be allowed if at all. As I have said, I don't agree with it personally, but why should my opinion affect others? I don't have the right to tell others what to do. I think the women are more divided on the issue, I'd say a lot of men genuinely don't care.

Macha

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I would have to say personally, I know far more pro-life women than men. Actually I only know one pro-life guy under forty, but he is also a devout Catholic and FG supporter, so in all fairness, he's a lost cause in several ways :pac:

I know several women staunch pro-life, only under the most strick of terms should it be allowed if at all. As I have said, I don't agree with it personally, but why should my opinion affect others? I don't have the right to tell others what to do. I think the women are more divided on the issue, I'd say a lot of men genuinely don't care.

Yes, I think you're right that women are more divided. One of the messages women receive very strongly in our society is that our main role is as child bearers and mothers (and sexual objects).

For some women it's obviously difficult to comprehend the idea that some women don't want to be mothers, or that they only want to be able to control their fertility, eg they want 3 children, not 4 or they want a child in their 30s not in their 20s. Here is where I think a lot of the "responsibility" type arguments come in.

My other suspicion is around attitudes to sex. Some of us think sex isn't just for procreation while some people clearly do. Hence you get suggestions that people should stop having sex if they don't want babies as if it's some sort of credible solution to unwanted pregnancies.

Edit: and both ideas are of course insulting to adult women.

wolfpawnat

Macha wrote: »

Yes, I think you're right that women are more divided. One of the messages women receive very strongly in our society is that our main role is as child bearers and mothers (and sexual objects).

For some women it's obviously difficult to comprehend the idea that some women don't want to be mothers, or that they only want to be able to control their fertility, eg they want 3 children, not 4 or they want a child in their 30s not in their 20s. Here is where I think a lot of the "responsibility" type arguments come in.

My other suspicion is around attitudes to sex. Some of us think sex isn't just for procreation while some people clearly do. Hence you get suggestions that people should stop having sex if they don't want babies as if it's some sort of credible solution to unwanted pregnancies.

I have seen this a few times, women who have two kids in their mid teens or three children already and don't want/can't afford anymore being judged for not wanting a unplanned pregnancy. It makes sense in many ways.

Sex is part of a healthy relationship, yes it's main function is pro-creation, but it has developed to more than that over time. Contraception is great, there are so many and they are all so effective, but they do not guarantee no pregnancies. Some people seem to forget this.

I had two unplanned pregnancies. I have my partners mother saying that her niece and another one of her nephews were with their partners for over a decade and they didn't have an unplanned pregnancy, so obviously I planned this one :rolleyes: The idea of them getting an abortion while they were young or being lucky with their contraceptive would not cross her mind!

Some women are not natural mothers, that's natural, in every animal you see females that do not have maternal instincts, but we are the only one to judge one another for it! There was a thread not too long ago on that topic in this forum, women feel like they need to justify their feelings, it is madness!

Even with me, "oh if this is another boy, surely you'll try for a girl after" This is it, two kids are more than enough. "Oh but sure what would one more be?" Another child, that is what it is. I know I can't be the only one getting that attitude.

Women are the worst judges of other women. Now I have had people coming up to me and saying I should just have gone to Belfast, they would have, and when I said that wasn't for me, she went nuts! Which I thought that rude too. Everyone has the right to their own choices, though I cannot see how my baby in anyway affects them, but anyway, there are nutjobs everywhere, men and women!

Morag

Have any of ye who are insulted by whats being said about 6 drs contacted your TDs to tell them you are outraged?
http://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2013/04/26/contact-your-tds-labour-tds-receiving-very-little-pressure-on-the-issue-of-6-doctors/


Given how awful trying to legislate for the X Case 20 years on and even with the majority of people thinking we should have the right to an abortion in cases of rape, incest, fatal fetal abnormalities and risk to Health not just life, the majority of politicians don't seem to understand it's what the people want.

I really do urge everyone who agrees with the above to at least consider sign up for the abortion rights campaigns newsletter we have a long fight ahead of us.