Is it still 1971 in Ireland? The contraceptive train still runs - Under another name.

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

Because I actually joined in to give my opinion. I didn't set it out fully (but why should I, it would be extremely boring for all concerned if posters did that), but I was certainly giving my views on the question.

You ignored that and went off on a rant about a later post from me, while at the same time complaining about me joining into a conversation uninvited. So since I had given my opinion, and you weren't interested in it, I'm not going to do it now just because you've decided you're entitled to dictate how and what I may say.

That is what I mean by mind games. Confirmed by your immediate decision that by not doing as you decreed, I had made some sort of declaration by default. Utter nonsense.

Whereas if you were being honest, and had just missed that post, you would have accepted that and apologized when I pointed it out to you.

More "oh why my whining" and utter dishonesty from you.

By the time I had read your posts and responded to them, you were ranting and raving about some Nazi Pro Life conspiracy going on.

And then complaining again about being me dictating your views completely missing the point(Or just choosing to gloss over it because you dont have a leg to stand on) where you had already done it to me without a shred of irony.

You're delusions and self pity are redundant, as are your half thought out opinions.

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

This really isn't a matter of opinion is it? A termination is universally referred to as when the fetus is miscarried or intentionally miscarried

If we're talking about the medical term, Termination of Pregnancy is a medically directed miscarriage though surgical of pharmacological means.

Miss Ys baby was delivered alive was it not? Thats not a termination of pregnancy, thats inducing pregnancy.

I don't know, if so she will presumably be entitled to major compensation because the psychiatrists she saw said that she did come under the terms of the POLDP Act, so if it wasn't triggered there is a huge legal problem. There seems to be an argument being made that she did, because the draft guidelines originally said that a live birth would not come under the terms of the Act, but the final version doesn't specify.

So it seems as though, in Ireland,a decision has been made to consider that live births brought about to save the mother's life are still "terminations of pregnancy". Which is what lazygal was saying. Can a single country rewrite international definitions? I guess they can. So in Ireland, Lazygal is right. It appears.

Fuhrer

shruikan2553 wrote: »

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terminate

Replace terminate with end. This isnt a film about time traveling robots.

No, we're talking about a very specific medical term.

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/termination-of-pregnancy

A medically relevant link. Go nuts.

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

More "oh why my whining" and utter dishonesty from you.

By the time I had read your posts and responded to them, you were ranting and raving about some Nazi Pro Life conspiracy going on.

And then complaining again about being me dictating your views completely missing the point(Or just choosing to gloss over it because you dont have a leg to stand on) where you had already done it to me without a shred of irony.

You're delusions and self pity are redundant, as are your half thought out opinions.

Well don't bother replying to me then, I can live with that.

You're just angry coz you made a fool of yourself just now.

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't know, if so she will presumably be entitled to major compensation because the psychiatrists she saw said that she did come under the terms of the POLDP Act, so if it wasn't triggered there is a huge legal problem. There seems to be an argument being made that she did, because the draft guidelines originally said that a live birth would not come under the terms of the Act, but the final version doesn't specify.

So it seems as though, in Ireland,a decision has been made to consider that live births brought about to save the mother's life are still "terminations of pregnancy". Which is what lazygal was saying. Can a single country rewrite international definitions? I guess they can. So in Ireland, Lazygal is right. It appears.

Show me this decision that has been made to consider that live births brought about to save the mother's life are still "terminations of pregnancy".

The court refused her the right to terminate the pregnancy, the exact opposite of what you said happened.

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

Well don't bother replying to me then, I can live with that.

You're just angry coz you made a fool of yourself just now.

"I know you are but what am I!"


Jesus wept.

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

Show me this decision that has been made to consider that live births brought about to save the mother's life are still "terminations of pregnancy".

The court refused her the right to terminate the pregnancy, the exact opposite of what you said happened.

You don't have a clue, do you? The court wasn't involved in taking the decision. The HSE went to court to ask for the right to forcibly hydrate, but that was a separate issue. The only people who decided whether or not she should have a termination of pregnancy under the terms of the POLDP Act were the three members of the panel, two psychiatrists and an obstetrician. And they agreed that she should. The only question was how to achieve that, since the obstetrician felt that by that stage the baby could be delivered alive.

So assuming she did have a termination, as the law required, then a termination of pregnancy, in Ireland, means any premature artificial ending of a pregnancy, including cesarean section.

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

Show me this decision that has been made to consider that live births brought about to save the mother's life are still "terminations of pregnancy".

The court refused her the right to terminate the pregnancy, the exact opposite of what you said happened.

There was no court involved. Her case was decided by clinicians. You're misrepresenting what happened and I think you should correct this.

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

You don't have a clue, do you? The court wasn't involved in taking the decision. The HSE went to court to ask for the right to forcibly hydrate, but that was a separate issue. The only people who decided whether or not she should have a termination of pregnancy under the terms of the POLDP Act were the three members of the panel, two psychiatrists and an obstetrician. And they agreed that she should. The only question was how to achieve that, since the obstetrician felt that by that stage the baby could be delivered alive.

So assuming she did have a termination, as the law required, then a termination of pregnancy, in Ireland, means any premature artificial ending of a pregnancy, including cesarean section.

I dont have a clue?

Thats rich coming from you, "She didnt have the termination as the law required"

Here is a copy of the law

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2013/en.act.2013.0035.pdf

Show me where in this law; that you state requires her to have a termination, it even mentions the word termination let alone the term you two were insisting was now changed "Termination of Pregnancy"

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

I dont have a clue?

Thats rich coming from you, "She didnt have the termination as the law required"

Here is a copy of the law

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2013/en.act.2013.0035.pdf

Show me where in this law; that you state requires her to have a termination, it even mentions the word termination let alone the term you two were insisting was now changed "Termination of Pregnancy"

Show me the relevant information on the court case which refused to grant ms y a termination of pregnancy.

Fuhrer

lazygal wrote: »

Show me the relevant information on the court case which refused to grant ms y a termination of pregnancy.

Again, you love answering questions with questions dont you?


Like I said the first time, you answer the question asked to your first, and then you get an answer.

And just so you know, im not accepting "Dhurrr, I donnno no" as an acceptable answer.

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

I dont have a clue?

Thats rich coming from you, "She didnt have the termination as the law required"

Here is a copy of the law

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2013/en.act.2013.0035.pdf

Show me where in this law; that you state requires her to have a termination, it even mentions the word termination let alone the term you two were insisting was now changed "Termination of Pregnancy"

Read up on what happened, because you are talking complete rubbish.

This action was in relation to getting an order to allow a termination to be carried out under the Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act.

In a statement today, the HSE said when senior management became aware of the matter they directed that no further court proceedings were required, and the termination could be carried out.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0928/648534-hse-miss-y/

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

I certainly did not "state" that she was required to have a termination. You are just making stuff up now.

volchitsa wrote: »

So assuming she did have a termination, as the law required

Your own words.


Also, why dont you read up on what happened because you are talking complete rubbish.

A panel convened determined that she was suicidal, meaning a termination would be lawful, but the obstetrician in the case would not perform the termination because by this point the woman was 25 weeks pregnant.

http://www.thejournal.ie/hse-miss-y-inquiry-1634580-Aug2014/

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

Again, you love answering questions with questions dont you?


Like I said the first time, you answer the question asked to your first, and then you get an answer.

And just so you know, im not accepting "Dhurrr, I donnno no" as an acceptable answer.

So you can't provide any information on the court case in which ms y was denied a termination of pregnancy?

Fuhrer

lazygal wrote: »

So you can't provide any information on the court case in which ms y was denied a termination of pregnancy?

Question answered with Question?

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

Question answered with Question?

Just Like you are doing. Still no information on the court case in which ms y was denied a termination of pregnancy.

Fuhrer

lazygal wrote: »

Just Like you are doing. Still no information on the court case in which ms y was denied a termination of pregnancy.

Yes, that was my point, every time I ask you a question you refuse to answer me and just answer a series on increasingly inane and stupid follow up questions.

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

Yes, that was my point, every time I ask you a question you refuse to answer me and just answer a series on increasingly inane and stupid follow up questions.

I don't think it's inane or pointless to ask you to validate your contention that there was a court case in which ms y was denied a termination of pregnancy.

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

Your own words.

Also, why dont you read up on what happened because you are talking complete rubbish.

Out of context quote - the law did not require her to have a termination, the law required her to be allowed to have a termination.

As to what happened, remember I said at the start that I'm also unconvinced by the HSE's attempt at rewriting the English language, so I tend to agree that NHS is using the normal meaning of the word.

The point is though, that in Ireland there is an official attempt to rewrite the meaning so that Miss Y can be considered to have been given the termination of pregnancy that the POLDP Act required that she be allowed to have (for the avoidance of any doubt!)

So it all comes down to whether or not we accept the Irish government's interpretation of the word termination or the NHS one.

But the court did not make the decision.

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

Out of context quote - the law did not require her to have a termination, the law required her to be allowed to have a termination.

As to what happened, remember I said at the start that I'm also unconvinced by the HSE's attempt at rewriting the English language, so I tend to agree that NHS is using the normal meaning of the word.

The point is though, that in Ireland there is an official attempt to rewrite the meaning so that Miss Y can be considered to have been given the termination of pregnancy that the POLDP Act required that she be allowed to have (for the avoidance of any doubt!)

So it all comes down to whether or not we accept the Irish government's interpretation of the word termination or the NHS one.

But the court did not make the decision.

If you bothered to read the link I provided, it clearly stated the obstetrician refused to perform the Termination because the baby was viable and instead the baby was delivered by Caesarian Section. Therefore clearly differentiating between a Termination and a C Section. You have offered not one shred or crumb of evidence to the contrary and yet still blather on incoherently about the most pointless and irrelevant details

So, No rewriting of the meaning of termination has happened, the obstetrician agrees with the NHS that a C section isn't a Termination of Pregnancy, you and lazygal are completely wrong and this whole discussion has been a complete waste of time because the two of you have invented some delusional and provably false scenario that you insist is reality. Have fun with that.

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

If you bothered to read the link I provided, it clearly stated the obstetrician refused to perform the Termination because the baby was viable and instead the baby was delivered by Caesarian Section. Therefore clearly differentiating between a Termination and a C Section. You have offered not one shred or crumb of evidence to the contrary and yet still blather on incoherently about the most pointless and irrelevant details

So, No rewriting of the meaning of termination has happened, the obstetrician agrees with the NHS that a C section isn't a Termination of Pregnancy, you and lazygal are completely wrong and this whole discussion has been a complete waste of time because the two of you have invented some delusional and provably false scenario that you insist is reality. Have fun with that.

To/Dr you're taking your ball and going home.

What happened to Ms Y in that court case to which you referred?

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

If you bothered to read the link I provided, it clearly stated the obstetrician refused to perform the Termination because the baby was viable and instead the baby was delivered by Caesarian Section. Therefore clearly differentiating between a Termination and a C Section. You have offered not one shred or crumb of evidence to the contrary and yet still blather on incoherently about the most pointless and irrelevant details

So, No rewriting of the meaning of termination has happened, the obstetrician agrees with the NHS that a C section isn't a Termination of Pregnancy, you and lazygal are completely wrong and this whole discussion has been a complete waste of time because the two of you have invented some delusional and provably false scenario that you insist is reality. Have fun with that.

But I did read it, it's an anonymous opinion piece from before the investigation into what happened even began.

I provided you with a quote from a Ministry of Health statement which directly contradicts that version of events, and says she was allowed a termination without going to court.

Which do you think is more reliable?

JupiterKid

Hasn't this thread gone way off topic? Wasn't the title of the thread about the abortion pill train protest?

Coppinger was reckless to neck those pills in the way that she did. They should only be taken under very close medical supervision. The pills should also be available here in Ireland to women wishing to have an early stage abortion (I don't agree with late stage abortion).

We also haven't even addressed the issue where in Ireland a women who discovers she has a non-viable fetus has to carry it to full term. That IMO is barbaric.

I'm very firmly in the pro-choice camp.

Hotblack Desiato

sheesh wrote: »

Yes the gardai were perfectly entitled to arrest them after they were dead. just not before.

They threatened the person accompanying the patient with arrest on their return, which is in my view totally wrong.

I honestly don't know how the guards found out about it either, given that thousands of women go to England for abortions every year leads me to assume that something else was going on here.

Apparently they booked a return ticket for the friend and a one-way ticket for the soon to be deceased, the travel agent tipped the gardai off, how he or they sleep at night after deliberately causing suffering to a dying person I don't know.

Hotblack Desiato

JupiterKid wrote: »

Coppinger was reckless to neck those pills in the way that she did.

If she did. You don't know for sure what she actually took.

(I don't agree with late stage abortion)

I'm very firmly in the pro-choice camp.

This position is very common but totally inconsistent. A woman has a right to choose up to some arbitrary time (in some cases, before some women even know they're pregnant) and after that she can be forced to be pregnant? Either she has bodily autonomy or she does not.

Many developmental issues with the foetus can't be picked up until at least 20 weeks. Late abortions are rare but sometimes necessary.

smurgen

realies wrote: »

It is quite embarrassing in this day and age that women still have to hide and go in secret to a another country in regards to contraception, unbelievable really.

Exporting our morality to another country.it's makes us backwards in my opinion. It's the 21st century , we need to get up to speed on stuff like this.the Church is holding us back.

volchitsa

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If she did. You don't know for sure what she actually took.

This position is very common but totally inconsistent. A woman has a right to choose up to some arbitrary time (in some cases, before some women even know they're pregnant) and after that she can be forced to be pregnant? Either she has bodily autonomy or she does not.

Many developmental issues with the foetus can't be picked up until at least 20 weeks. Late abortions are rare but sometimes necessary.

I agree that late abortions may occasionally be necessary, including simply to save the woman's life, but I'm not sure that the bodily autonomy argument has to be 100% valid right up until birth.

Personally, I see the developing fetus as a being which gains rights that may be in opposition to the woman's, on a sliding scale from zero for the fertilized but unimplanted egg (MAP) to equivalent to you or me for the new born baby.

I realize that is somewhat arbitrary, but the law is arbitrary in that way: an 18 year old is not really completely different from the person he was three days before his birthday for ex. A 65 year old is not incapable of work. A legal boundary isn't a perfect description of a physiological state, but it is essential to have them for a law to exist.

inocybe

JupiterKid wrote: »

Hasn't this thread gone way off topic? Wasn't the title of the thread about the abortion pill train protest?

Coppinger was reckless to neck those pills in the way that she did. They should only be taken under very close medical supervision. The pills should also be available here in Ireland to women wishing to have an early stage abortion (I don't agree with late stage abortion).

We also haven't even addressed the issue where in Ireland a women who discovers she has a non-viable fetus has to carry it to full term. That IMO is barbaric.

I'm very firmly in the pro-choice camp.

But that's the very point isn't it - that Irish women do not have the right to medical supervision, they often have to take them alone and scared at home. The dangers have been exaggerated by those who want to terrify women into continuing unwanted pregnancies, it's a nasty dirty tactic. Taking the pill was a show of solidarity, and I'm very grateful that she did that.
(Bearing in the mind that the abortion pill is actually 2 pills taken some hours apart, and the first pill doesn't cause the bleeding, it interferes with progesterone. I assume no-one took the second pill). Well done to everyone involved.

Hotblack Desiato

volchitsa wrote: »

I agree that late abortions may occasionally be necessary, including simply to save the woman's life, but I'm not sure that the bodily autonomy argument has to be 100% valid right up until birth.

Birth, no. Viability outside the womb though - at that point abortion isn't necessary if the pregnancy needs to be ended.

If you draw the arbitrary cut-off line before the point of viability, then you still believe that in certain circumstances a woman can be forced to remain pregnant.

volchitsa

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Birth, no. Viability outside the womb though - at that point abortion isn't necessary if the pregnancy needs to be ended.

If you draw the arbitrary cut-off line before the point of viability, then you still believe that in certain circumstances a woman can be forced to remain pregnant.

Well, I was describing my general approach to the question, not setting out every last detail - not that it would be possible probably to take every potential scenario into account in a few sentences anyway.

Since the Irish constitution grants some sort of legal status to the fetus (though it's not clear what exactly) that also creates problems for wanted pregnancies, not just over abortion.
So for example before the term of a wanted pregnancy, but after viability, a woman may develop health issues which can only be resolved by ending the pregnancy early.

What happens in that case if the fetus is viable, so its equal right to life must be validated - since it is probably in the fetus' interests not to end the pregnancy before term?

So the reason I said I saw it as a developing line up until birth is because I wasn't just thinking of a time limit when abortion was possible/not possible, but of how any law might need to approach this possible conflict of interests between the pregnant woman and her fetus.

It's the risk of unforeseen consequences, like those caused by the 8th amendment, that worries me.
Obviously if we didn't have such a mad amendment in the constitution in the first place, there would be other solutions, as they do in other countries. But we do.