anyone else fed up hearing about abortion already

jameorahiely

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well that totally changes my opinion about abortion!

Except that it has nothing to feckin do with anything.

Again, if Savita had been given an abortion on demand, she would be alive today.

She wasn't, even though everyone knew the foetus was going to die, because of our stupid law.

We should change our stupid law, which means repealing the 8th.

It just shows you have a few sound bites about the case, without much knowledge of what actually happened.


The women mentioned earlier in NY and london were given abortions on demand, yet neither are alive today.

ohnonotgmail

jameorahiely wrote: »

It just shows you have a few sound bites about the case, without much knowledge of what actually happened.


The women mentioned earlier in NY and london were given abortions on demand, yet neither are alive today.

and right back to the start of the circle we go. an abortion is a medical procedure. all medical procedures carry risks. those who decide to have an abortion have to accept those risks. you however think they they should have the option to make that decision at all. you want to make that decision for them and prevent them from having an abortion because you think you know better than they do.

jameorahiely

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and right back to the start of the circle we go. an abortion is a medical procedure. all medical procedures carry risks. those who decide to have an abortion have to accept those risks. you however think they they should have the option to make that decision at all. you want to make that decision for them and prevent them from having an abortion because you think you know better than they do.

No, the doctors make the decision, not me. The doctors, who legally decide to carry out abortions at a rate of more than 1 per fortnight.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

jameorahiely wrote: »

The doctors, who legally decide to carry out abortions at a rate of more than 1 per fortnight.

1 per fortnight would be 26 per year.

That would mean less than 1% of legal abortions on Irish women are carried out in Ireland, and 99% happen abroad because of our stupid laws.

ohnonotgmail

jameorahiely wrote: »

No, the doctors make the decision, not me. The doctors, who legally decide to carry out abortions at a rate of more than 1 per fortnight.

it is you that wants to stop women having access to abortion in their own country.

jameorahiely

I Love Abortion: Implying Otherwise Accomplishes Nothing for Women’s Rights

https://rewire.news/article/2012/03/14/choice-words-about-abortion-0/

ohnonotgmail

jameorahiely wrote: »

I Love Abortion: Implying Otherwise Accomplishes Nothing for Women’s Rights

https://rewire.news/article/2012/03/14/choice-words-about-abortion-0/

so you're a radical feminist now?

btw good job on completely missing the point of the article. did you just google "i love abortion" and post the first link you found?

Parchment

@jameorahiely - are you male?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Parchment

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I just find such an obsession with a topic to be quite unsettling.

I am prochoice and thats my stance but to devote so much time and effort to being a keyboard warrior about my stance seems futile.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Mr. CooL ICE

I don't understand the term "lunchtime abortions". I only get an hour for lunch. I assume an abortion would take a lot longer than that?

jameorahiely

Parchment wrote: »

I just find such an obsession with a topic to be quite unsettling.

I am prochoice and thats my stance but to devote so much time and effort to being a keyboard warrior about my stance seems futile.

I find people think put animal rights above human rights unsettling.


Do you jump on every bandwagon passing, because your principles seem severly skewed, even non existant

eviltwin

jameorahiely wrote: »

It just shows you have a few sound bites about the case, without much knowledge of what actually happened.


The women mentioned earlier in NY and london were given abortions on demand, yet neither are alive today.

They are not here today because of the negligence of their caregivers. Negligence happens in all areas of health care. It is nothing to do with abortion.

Parchment

jameorahiely wrote: »

I find people think put animal rights above human rights unsettling.


Do you jump on every bandwagon passing, because your principles seem severly skewed, even non existant

Did you read all my posts? did you enjoy them?

Lets never meet.....

Grayson

jameorahiely wrote: »

They ignored changes to her vitals, did not read her charts or carry out examinations, and did not report discharge that smelt and was indicitive if more serious issues.

They ignored or failed to communicate the symptoms. When the doctor became fully aware she was prepared to carry out a termination.

Any good maternity hospital would not have ignored these symptoms

There were over 20 points of failure in her treatment. What's worse is that the exact same thing happened in Louth a few years beforehand. The HIQA investigated and issued recommendations. The recommendations were implemented in louth (I can't remember if it was Dundalk or Drogheda) but weren't implemented in other hospitals. If they had, Savita might quite possibly be alive.

I think we can both agree that the treatment offered to women in Ireland is substandard and lacking. Making one mistake is bad enough but over 20? And to do it not once but twice?

The Savita case is used by both pro life and pro choice advocates because it's results support both. Pro life people say that there shouldn't have been a need for a termination and that if the doctors had done their job then she would have survived. Their right. However they're ignoring the fact that the doctors didn't do their job and at a particular point a termination probably would have saved her. At that point the doctors didn't do it because of the law. And as one woman put it, because "this is a catholic country".

Nobody should have to die because of anothers religious belief.

jameorahiely

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

I don't understand the term "lunchtime abortions". I only get an hour for lunch. I assume an abortion would take a lot longer than that?

Lunch time abortions have been around quite a while now


http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/abortion-the-right-to-choose-an-abortion-in-your-lunch-break-1235979.html


When Marie Stopes launched a "lunch-time abortion" service in June this year, it was hailed by some as a medical - and even shocking - breakthrough. It is certainly popular: since June, 2,000 women have paid for this quickie procedure in one of seven specialist day-care centres around the country.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/revealed-women-offered-lunchtime-abortions-on-scots-nhs-1-1411417

jameorahiely

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you're a radical feminist now?

btw good job on completely missing the point of the article. did you just google "i love abortion" and post the first link you found?

Do you agree with the point shes making or not?

ohnonotgmail

jameorahiely wrote: »

Do you agree with the point shes making or not?

i get where she is coming from but i dont agree with how she puts them across. but they are not the points YOU think she is making.

jameorahiely

Parchment wrote: »

@jameorahiely - are you male?

Do you think requests for abortions should be honoured if they are made via a male?

jameorahiely

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i get where she is coming from but i dont agree with how she puts them across. but they are not the points YOU think she is making.

Why points do you think I think she's making? That's an odd statement to make.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

jameorahiely wrote: »

Why points do you think I think she's making? That's an odd statement to make.

you read the "I love abortions" headline and think that she means women should enjoy them. which is clearly not her point.

PopePalpatine

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

I don't understand the term "lunchtime abortions". I only get an hour for lunch. I assume an abortion would take a lot longer than that?

It's a useful term to mention when you're an anti-choicer with a love of slut-shaming.

gctest50

jameorahiely wrote: »

I find people think put animal rights above human rights unsettling.


Do you jump on every bandwagon passing, because your principles seem severly skewed, even non existant

.

jameorahiely wrote: »

They weren't examining her or taking any heed. They didn't follow hospital policy. Blaming the law is a cop out. If they were monitiring her as they shoukd have been, the path of action taken may have been different.


Would you agree with belguims law, able to kill children up to 12 years old?

jameorahiely

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It's a useful term to mention when you're an anti-choicer with a love of slut-shaming.

Are you denying they exist?

jameorahiely

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i get where she is coming from but i dont agree with how she puts them across. but they are not the points YOU think she is making.

So you love abortion too

ohnonotgmail

jameorahiely wrote: »

So you love abortion too

and you massively miss the point again. tell us, what point do you think she was making?

ohnonotgmail

jameorahiely wrote: »

Are you denying they exist?

they do exist. so what?