Abortion Discussion

Shrap

Can't post links so please put www. in front of thejournal.ie/readme/abortion-laws-ireland-ms-y-1689733-Sep2014/ into your http bar.

"An asylum seeker who needs to travel to another jurisdiction to access an abortion becomes mired in paperwork—the Dutch and UK embassies, for example, require 12 separate pieces of documentation before a visa can be issued—and faces costs amounting to multiples of her weekly allowance of €19.10.
A woman may also need a temporary travel document and a re-entry visa to return to Ireland. All of this requires numerous visits to and from the relevant government offices, which are all based in Dublin. And the travel documents may be refused."

and

"As a health service provider, we do everything we possibly can to ensure that women and girls can access services. But our services are regulated by the Abortion Information Act and our counsellors cannot, for example, make an appointment or any other “arrangement” with an abortion clinic on a woman’s behalf. We cannot give her financial assistance.
We work closely with other non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and health service providers to create care pathways for women and to ensure women have access to financial supports. These pathways and supports are delicate constructions, almost entirely reliant on the goodwill and conscientious commitment of individuals—eg, numerous NGOs, counsellors and volunteers."

and

"And this shambles causes systemic harms. Women who have abortions are stigmatised. In some cases, the obstacles are insurmountable and women are forced to continue with a pregnancy and to parent, perhaps while living in a reception centre. Or resort to illegal and unsafe methods of abortion."

This article may shed some light on the situation. Clearly, the IFPA is saying that they may be able to get an asylum seeker to UK, but the travel documents they have sourced (legally) may be refused. They cannot arrange an abortion for someone, but seemingly, they can travel with her in order to help. And all this on the often voluntary and conscientious commitment of individuals in NGO's and presumably within our own state agencies, trying against all the odds to help these poor forsaken women. Forsaken by our country.

For shame.

Shrap

Can't seem to edit my post for some reason. I read the article wrong and took out of it that if an asylum seeker had travel documents, they may be refused (in the UK). Anyhow, whatever happened here, it's clear to me that these "off the record" situations are just that because no agency here can help procure an abortion abroad, but they can get people out of the country and steer them towards/link with the right people. All under the radar of course. And all seemingly by people committed to helping desperate women. They are to be applauded and helped wherever possible to my mind. If only it didn't have to be this way.

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

Ah jaysus wept. A sentence with "??" at the end of it is not stated as a fact, but a supposition.

Ah, I see. My apologies then; since it was written as a statement,rather than a question, and had three question marks at the end, you can see how it might be mistaken for an expression of incredulity that we weren't aware of the fact you were presenting.

Shrap wrote: »

I still like my theory. It fits with what I think of this sorry systemic hypocrisy that even the state uses in order to make it look like abortion doesn't exist as an answer to crisis pregnancies in this country.

I can see why you like your theory, since it fits the narrative that you want to portray. But can you see how the theory doesn't actually have any facts whatsoever to support it? You presented a supposition, as you say, then made other suppositions based on that, whilst ignoring issues like the fact she was arrested despite your supposition of travel paperwork. It's really more of a story than a theory at the moment...

Shrap wrote: »

Considering what DID happen to the poor girl at the hands of this state, the scenario I'm suggesting is positively it's only redeeming feature, if indeed HSE personnel tried their best to get her to the UK.

We certainly should be considering what DID happen to her; as soon as she presented herself to a GP with suicidal ideation (some weeks after her trip to the UK) she was rapidly assessed by psychiatrists and her ideation was treated by a termination; a termination which was only delayed by her own desire to kill the child rather than see it delivered. So far her treatment at the hands of the state seems to have involved her being cared for entirely in accordance with the law, notwithstanding any new information that may come to light in the final HSE report.

Shrap wrote: »

it's wishful thinking on my part that the HSE has the kind of caring personnel who would take that kind of risk, and if it did happen, it didn't work out anyway as we can see from the cruel and sacrificial way Ms.Y was subsequently treated here.

Not even supposition, but wishful thinking now? Nevertheless, it's amazing how treating the girls condition in a manner that actually saved both her life and her childs is being called 'cruel and sacrificial' treatment.

Shrap

Absolam wrote: »

Nevertheless, it's amazing how treating the girls condition in a manner that actually saved both her life and her childs is being called 'cruel and sacrificial' treatment.

Treating the girl's condition in this manner from start (when she found out) to the finish of her pregnancy was not only cruel and sacrificial, it also inhumanely, shockingly, obscenely and tragically dominated and controlled a helpless and traumatised person. I find your answer gross.

How do you do "ignore" on this? Anyone?

Shrap

Found it. No more Absolam.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Before your brain explodes with Absolam's utterly pointless fake questions, I just want to say that while of course your suggestion is speculation, it is certainly plausible speculation.

I'm afraid my questions are only pointless if no one is interested in the facts (or only have enough time to create narratives, rather than discuss the facts). I assure you there's nothing fake about them, they're just as genuine as the questions I asked you that you chose not to answer.

volchitsa wrote: »

And of course the fact that the draft report from the HSE doesn't appear to be worth the paper it's written on in terms of clarifying matters, your speculation is probably at least as close to the truth as the HSE report is so far anyway.

Probably just as well it's only a draft isn't it? The fact that the HSE themselves have said that it cannot be considered to present a full and final view of the work of the team compiling the report would indicate that it is not actually intended to be worth the paper it's written on in terms of clarifying matters, wouldn't it?

volchitsa wrote: »

They haven't even interviewed the most important person in the whole series of events, Ms Y.

See, there's that whole narrative thing again. It seems rather disingenuous to give the impression that the HSE are at fault for not interviewing Miss Y, when you know that they haven't interviewed her because she has so far refused to engage with the inquiry. Almost as if you think the facts are getting in the way of the preferred narrative.

Absolam

swampgas wrote: »

+1 : He seems to be a higher-functioning version of JC. And on my ignore list.

One of the things I like about J C is, despite his own assertion that he is only a guest in the forum, he is considerate of the Charter and unfailingly attacks the post and not the poster.
Based on that alone I'd say that J C is obviously highly functional, and indeed his demeanor should be emulated and applauded by more posters.

Zubeneschamali

Absolam wrote: »

Probably just as well it's only a draft isn't it? The fact that the HSE themselves have said that it cannot be considered to present a full and final view of the work of the team compiling the report would indicate that it is not actually intended to be worth the paper it's written on in terms of clarifying matters, wouldn't it?

No.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I wondered how she could get back into the republic without being spotted, if she was detained on the far side with her documents temporarily held by Police.

I wondered that too, but then I thought, if she was subject to the same scrutiny as I was as a foot passenger (and reporters and other boardsies have noticed), to Holyhead, it's not so much how did she get back into the Republic without being spotted, as how did she get spotted entering the UK.

aloyisious wrote: »

I'd imagine that some form of contact would have been made between the two police forces here and there about her arrest/detention as she is a foreign national to both countries and they operate the checks on them, before she was released from custody.

That's what I would have imagined, but obviously neither the Gardai nor the British police have actually said that this happened. Which rather leaves it in the realm of imagination at the moment.

aloyisious wrote: »

If she WAS assisted/accompanied by HSE personnel in travelling to/from Liverpool that might explain how she got to and from so apparently freely.

Well, the fact that she was arrested for illegally entering the UK does rather mean she didn't get to and from so apparently freely. Which means if she was accompained by the HSE (or someone from the HSE) they could potentially be liable to be prosecuted in the UK for facilitating the commission of a breach of immigration legislation. That would be embarrassing.

aloyisious wrote: »

I'd imagine that the HSE would be upset if any mention of it, or it's staff, being allegedly involved in such inter-national movement were to be publicly discussed.

I'd imagine so too, though luckily I doubt they have the means to keep it from public discussion given the fact that they can't even keep their own draft documents from being leaked.

aloyisious wrote: »

I'd imagine that Iona and other like parties would be very upset at the very idea of a state agency working to procure "alternative terminations" abroad.

I'd say so.. especially since previous abortions abroad arranged by the HSE were conducted in line with the law at the time, and such abortions should have been rendered unnecessary under the new legislation. The legislation which Miss Y did, in fact, receive a termination under, a few weeks later. Although generally the opinion here seems to be that Iona et al hypocritically prefer to export abortion, so by that logic they'd surely be delighted. Hmm.

Anyways, so the supposition seems to rely on someone in the HSE being made aware of Miss Ys suicidal ideation some weeks before the HSE (or at least the responsible part of the HSE) supposedly were made aware, and invoking a portion of a process previously used prior to the enactment of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act to obtain legal abortions in the case of suicidal ideation. I wonder how silly they now feel knowing that they could have simply used the new legislation to procure an abortion in Ireland (termination by caesarian probably wouldn't have been an option at that point), and avoided potential legal action in the UK, as well as possible censure from their Dept? As well, of course, as avoiding putting Miss Y through a considerable amount of unnecessary trauma in the process.

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

I know it's pure speculation on my part, and is also a huge can of worms if true, but I can't be the only one who's thought this. Thinking it doesn't make it true, obviously, but IF it were true....IF.... Well, it would blow the whole debacle sky high wouldn't it? Suddenly the hand of the state would be forced into tackling some very unattractive truths about our impossible constitutional constraints on abortion and yes the likes of Iona would have a field day.

It would certainly make you wonder why someone in the HSE would go to all that trouble and illegality when there was a legal, local, process available.

Shrap wrote: »

Of course, it could just have been a whip around among Ms Y's friends? And one of them gone with her? But in fairness, 28 euro wasn't going to get her far. There's more folks involved here than just Ms. Y.

You know that might be true. As you say, it's obviously pure speculation, but I suppose her friends could have paid for her travel, and forgot to tell her not to go looking for an immigration official in case she was arrested, but just in case she was placed however briefly in the care of the British state, provided her with the right information to hand in order to possibly persuade them to provide her with an abortion. Wouldn't that have been a hell of a story? "Rape victim refused compassionate termination by hypocritical Irish state assisted by caring UK Government". We should probably take our speculations over to the Conspiracy Theory forum at this stage....

Shrap wrote: »

Anyhow, whatever happened here, it's clear to me that these "off the record" situations are just that because no agency here can help procure an abortion abroad, but they can get people out of the country and steer them towards/link with the right people.

What 'off the record situations'? The only real situations you've referred to so far are 'on the record'.

Shrap wrote: »

All under the radar of course. And all seemingly by people committed to helping desperate women. They are to be applauded and helped wherever possible to my mind. If only it didn't have to be this way.

Then you can rest easy; the situations you referred to would qualify for terminations in Ireland under the Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act. Job done. Nothing under the radar, nothing off the record, no brave resistance fighters helping desparate women. How good is that?

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

Treating the girl's condition in this manner from start (when she found out) to the finish of her pregnancy was not only cruel and sacrificial, it also inhumanely, shockingly, obscenely and tragically dominated and controlled a helpless and traumatised person. I find your answer gross.

Perhaps it's only gross because you haven't really considered it?
It's not as if any one person or agency treated her condition in any manner from start to finish.
Nor was any of her treatment cruel, other than the idea that not permitting her to choose for herself whether or not to have an abortion is cruel, which is obviously a bigger, and subjective, argument.
At no point had any action taken in her treatment been sacrificial; the only people who have tried to use her in any way seem to be those of the pro abortion camp trying to make an example of her.
Inhumane, shocking, obscene and tragic domination are all certainly redolent epithets but are you really doing anything more than engaging in supposition again?
Throughout these events it appears that Miss Y has encountered people and agencies who desired to help her to the best of their abilities within the limits of the law. That doesn't seem gross, cruel, sacrificial, inhumane, shocking, obscene, tragic, or domineering, but perhaps there are specific occurrences that you can refer to that deserve these descriptions?

Nodin

Absolam wrote: »

Ah, I see. My apologies then; since it was written as a statement,rather than a question, and had three question marks at the end, you can see how it might be mistaken for an expression of incredulity that we weren't aware of the fact you were presenting.
I can see why you like your theory, since it fits the narrative that you want to portray. But can you see how the theory doesn't actually have any facts whatsoever to support it? You presented a supposition, as you say, then made other suppositions based on that, whilst ignoring issues like the fact she was arrested despite your supposition of travel paperwork. It's really more of a story than a theory at the moment...

We certainly should be considering what DID happen to her; as soon as she presented herself to a GP with suicidal ideation (some weeks after her trip to the UK) she was rapidly assessed by psychiatrists and her ideation was treated by a termination; a termination which was only delayed by her own desire to kill the child rather than see it delivered. So far her treatment at the hands of the state seems to have involved her being cared for entirely in accordance with the law, notwithstanding any new information that may come to light in the final HSE report.

................

Blaming the victim and classy wording. Nice.

Absolam

Nodin wrote: »

Blaming the victim and classy wording. Nice.

I didn't blame her for anything at all, I pointed out the choice she made when they told her they were terminating the pregnancy by caesarian, and she went on hunger strike because she wanted an abortion instead. How exactly does pointing out the choice she made 'blame the victim'?

Nodin

Absolam wrote: »

I didn't blame her for anything at all, I pointed out the choice she made when they told her they were terminating the pregnancy by caesarian, and she went on hunger strike because she wanted an abortion instead. How exactly does pointing out the choice she made 'blame the victim'?

She was raped. Your tone and terminology seems dead set on stampeding past that. It's nasty, low and uncalled for.

Delirium

Survey: More than two-thirds want referendum to liberalise abortion laws

Nearly 70% of people want a referendum on abortion to liberalise Ireland's laws in the area.

According to an Ipsos/MRBI survey in today's Irish Times, 68% are in favour of a vote on whether abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or when a foetus would not be born alive.

The survey found that 23% were against, and 9% had no opinion.

Absolam

Nodin wrote: »

She was raped. Your tone and terminology seems dead set on stampeding past that. It's nasty, low and uncalled for.

She alleged she was raped, and neither my tone nor my terminology made any reference to it at all; the post you commented on was entirely in regard to her decision once she was informed of how her pregnancy would be terminated.
What's nasty, low, and uncalled for is trying to pretend that being the victim of one thing makes her a victim of another.

volchitsa

Absolam wrote: »

She alleged she was raped, and neither my tone nor my terminology made any reference to it at all; the post you commented on was entirely in regard to her decision once she was informed of how her pregnancy would be terminated.
What's nasty, low, and uncalled for is trying to pretend that being the victim of one thing makes her a victim of another.

She was suicidal, the psychiatrists have certified to that. So what is really nasty, low and uncalled for is trying to present the fact that a suicidal woman was forced to go on hunger and thirst strike because it was the only way she could force the HSE to hear her voice was "a choice". It was sheer desperation. And your continued determination to say she, and we, could possibly be satisfied with the way she was "cared for" says all we need to know about you and your agenda.

And by the way, the official memos that have been released show that they considered that the c-section did NOT fall within the remit of the Protection of life during pregnancy act. There has been some very rapid back pedalling since then, to try to say that it does, but that isn't what happened. That is one of the few things we do know for sure.

And before you ask, I'm not going to go back and post the links again, it's all been done before, and is presumably still available. I don't expect you to admit it, because it doesn't fit with your HSE-approved version of events.

Shrap

In Europe, only in Ireland could a woman be a victim of rape, a victim of becoming pregnant through rape, a victim of the direct provision system, a victim of forced pregnancy and a victim of forced caesarean operation ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

I can't see any part of this scenario that would denote choice over your state of mind in these circumstances. Once a person has been that degraded, how would they be anything but suicidal?

PopePalpatine

Nodin wrote: »

She was raped. Your tone and terminology seems dead set on stampeding past that. It's nasty, low and uncalled for.

What do you expect from a side that has David Quinn and Youth Defence?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

So what is really nasty, low and uncalled for is trying to present the fact that a suicidal woman was forced to go on hunger and thirst strike because it was the only way she could force the HSE to hear her voice was "a choice".

She wasn't forced to do it in order for the HSE to hear her voice; the HSE heard her quite clearly when she said she would rather die than be pregnant.
We're all quite aware that she wanted the HSE to hear her voice when she went on hunger strike, why is it so difficult to cope with the fact that what she wanted to be heard was that she wanted the child killed rather than delivered? She seems to have been quite explicit.

volchitsa wrote: »

It was sheer desperation.

It obviously was, no one would go on hunger strike otherwise. That doesn't change what she wanted though, does it?

volchitsa wrote: »

And your continued determination to say she, and we, could possibly be satisfied with the way she was "cared for" says all we need to know about you and your agenda.

I've yet to see you raise a single factual issue with the care she was provided?

volchitsa wrote: »

And by the way, the official memos that have been released show that they considered that the c-section did NOT fall within the remit of the Protection of life during pregnancy act. There has been some very rapid back pedalling since then, to try to say that it does, but that isn't what happened. That is one of the few things we do know for sure.

We have been here before, and the law didn't change in the meantime... but have you given any thought to the questions I asked the last time? They are still quite salient to the claims you trying to make.

volchitsa wrote: »

And before you ask, I'm not going to go back and post the links again, it's all been done before, and is presumably still available. I don't expect you to admit it, because it doesn't fit with your HSE-approved version of events.

Don't worry, I'm well able to read what you posted before, and what you missed out. As for the HSE approved version of events, well I think I'll wait until they release their actual report before I comment on it.

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

In Europe, only in Ireland could a woman be a victim of rape, a victim of becoming pregnant through rape, a victim of the direct provision system, a victim of forced pregnancy and a victim of forced caesarean operation ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

Well, more accurately, only in the minds of some Irish people rather than only in Ireland...

Shrap wrote: »

I can't see any part of this scenario that would denote choice over your state of mind in these circumstances. Once a person has been that degraded, how would they be anything but suicidal?

I don't think anyone has tried to claim she wasn't suicidal. After all, two psychiatrists said she was, so why would anyone want to argue the point?

aloyisious

Shrap wrote: »

I know it's pure speculation on my part, and is also a huge can of worms if true, but I can't be the only one who's thought this. Thinking it doesn't make it true, obviously, but IF it were true....IF....

Well, it would blow the whole debacle sky high wouldn't it? Suddenly the hand of the state would be forced into tackling some very unattractive truths about our impossible constitutional constraints on abortion and yes the likes of Iona would have a field day.

Of course, it could just have been a whip around among Ms Y's friends? And one of them gone with her? But in fairness, 28 euro wasn't going to get her far. There's more folks involved here than just Ms. Y.

If you're saying we shouldn't be speculating like this, is that in case it's true, or in case it isn't?

Naw, speculate away, I've no right to limit you on what you wonder about. My quote about not answering questions was for another follower of this thread, if you get my drift. I was mildly curious as to the why's and where-fors of Y's trip to Liverpool, thinking that it was possibly for a healthy reason.

Festus

SW wrote: »

Survey: More than two-thirds want referendum to liberalise abortion laws

to which PLC has responded

The Pro Life Campaign has said the question asked on abortion in the latest Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll is completely misleading. The poll published today claims that 68% of people favour a referendum that would allow abortion in the case of rape or where the baby will not be born alive.

The PLC said it would welcome a public debate on the methodology and type of questions being asked on the issue of abortion. Commenting on today's poll, Caroline Simons, Legal Consultant to the Pro Life Campaign said:

"In the question gauging support for abortion where the unborn baby has a terminal illness, the poll question clearly states that these are situations where the baby 'will not be born alive'. This is a total distortion of the true picture since no doctor can say with certainty that a baby will die in pregnancy or even in the newborn period. Prolonged survival has occurred in all of the cases commonly described as fatal."

She continued:

"Opinion polls should not be adding to public confusion. They should be clarifying issues if anything. We had the same situation during the debate on last year's abortion law where poll questions were put to people that presumed that abortion was a treatment for suicidal feelings. We know from the evidence that this is not the case."

"It is time for a public debate on the methodology and type of questions being asked on the issue of abortion. The Pro Life Campaign would welcome such a discussion."

PopePalpatine

I don't see how that question is "uncertain", it's just the PLC being bad losers.

Festus

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I don't see how that question is "uncertain", it's just the PLC being bad losers.

Do you know any doctor who can predict when a child with a birth defect or malformation will die and can say with certainty that the child will die before birth?

iwantmydinner

Festus wrote: »

Do you know any doctor who can predict when a child with a birth defect or malformation will die and can say with certainty that the child will die before birth?

Great question. Do you know anyone who would choose to be born without a brain?

Festus

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Great question. Do you know anyone who would choose to be born without a brain?

yes. I believe call themselves "pro-choice"

Loafing Oaf

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I don't see how that question is "uncertain", it's just the PLC being bad losers.

Plus she doesn't say anything at all about the rape question. Pro-lifers have historically dismissed opinion poll findings that a majority favours abortion in certain circumstances by claiming that what they favour is not really abortion but that won't wash in the case of rape/incest...

iwantmydinner

Festus wrote: »

yes. I believe call themselves "pro-choice"

Well it's great to establish the level of discussion at an early stage.

PopePalpatine

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Plus she doesn't say anything at all about the rape question. Pro-lifers have historically dismissed opinion poll findings that a majority favours abortion in certain circumstances by claiming that what they favour is not really abortion but that won't wash in the case of rape/incest...

They don't mind dismissing democracy either.