Sectioned for not wanting a section (kinda)

sullivlo

MOD WARNING

THIS IS A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE. DISCUSS BUT BE RESPECTFUL OF OTHER POSTERS. THIS IS YOUR ONE AND ONLY WARNING. CARDS AND BANS WILL BE USED, AND THE THREAD MAY BE LOCKED.

REMEMBER, THIS IS THE LADIES LOUNGE AND IS A SAFE PLACE FOR WOMEN TO DISCUSS ISSUES FROM A WOMANS POINT OF VIEW.




https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/girl-sectioned-after-psychiatrist-ruled-out-abortion-1.3116111?mode=amp

I'm sick of being a woman because if I needed (or wanted) an abortion which is a medical procedure I would have to travel.

me_right_one

sullivlo wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/girl-sectioned-after-psychiatrist-ruled-out-abortion-1.3116111?mode=amp

I'm sick of being a woman because if I needed (or wanted) an abortion which is a medical procedure I would have to travel.

Would you ever go on outa that. Medical? Usually medicine involves saving lives, not taking them. And if you really did need an abortion for medical reasons, the 2013 "Protection of life during pregnancy" act completely legalises it. You are 100% covered.

90% of the pro-abortionists want abortion on demand so the Rachels of this world can have a shag outside coppers without taking responsibility for their own resultant baby. Dont deny it, everybody knows this. Its disgusting. Medical reasons are one thing, promiscuity is another. Its not on.

.......

This post has been deleted.

mahamageehad

sullivlo wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/girl-sectioned-after-psychiatrist-ruled-out-abortion-1.3116111?mode=amp

I'm sick of being a woman because if I needed (or wanted) an abortion which is a medical procedure I would have to travel.

Terrible story, I read that this morning. The poor girl. Isn't risk of suicide covered by the current act? So what, she wasn't suicidal enough?? Christ on a pogo. The sooner the 8th is repealed, the better.

whoopsadoodles

Aaaand.

I'm out.

Just a suggestion ladies: probably better to keep contentious issues like abortion out of this thread as this should be a safe place for all women to post about their daily woes of womanhood without politics getting thrown into the mix.

My 2cents.

mahamageehad

whoopsadoodles wrote: »

Aaaand.

I'm out.

Just a suggestion ladies: probably better to keep contentious issues like abortion out of this thread as this should be a safe place for all women to post about their daily woes of womanhood without politics getting thrown into the mix.

My 2cents.

Even though I do think it's an important conversation to have, I'm going to agree with you here. There's plenty more threads on boards for this topic.

Back on thread, no more sore boobs today yay! However, we've already gotten into the annual strop of how cold the office should be. I'm not a perisher by any means, but seriously keeping the air con that high is just going to make us all sick, there's a bloody 15 degree difference between inside and outside!

rainbow kirby

me_right_one wrote: »

Would you ever go on outa that. Medical? Usually medicine involves saving lives, not taking them. And if you really did need an abortion for medical reasons, the 2013 "Protection of life during pregnancy" act completely legalises it. You are 100% covered.

90% of the pro-abortionists want abortion on demand so the Rachels of this world can have a shag outside coppers without taking responsibility for their own resultant baby. Dont deny it, everybody knows this. Its disgusting. Medical reasons are one thing, promiscuity is another. Its not on.

Another crap thing about being a woman? Having to deal with this kind of bullsh1t.

me_right_one

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Another crap thing about being a woman? Having to deal with this kind of bullsh1t.

How exactly is it bullsh1t? If you need a MEDICAL abortion in this country, you can have one. End of story. Otherwise........

eviltwin

me_right_one wrote: »

How exactly is it bullsh1t? If you need a MEDICAL abortion in this country, you can have one. End of story. Otherwise........

Shows what you know. There are many things we do that are medical in nature that we don't need to do and can live without but we do them because of quality of life. That's across the board. I have a kid getting cosmetic dental treatment, she doesn't "need" it, she won't die without it and she can still talk and eat etc but its damaging to her self esteem and confidence, you know mental health?, and that is reason enough to do it.

All the accounts here of physical ailments on this thread, none of those are life threatening are they but they still wouldn't be something you'd take on are they? Quality of life and comfort is important.

me_right_one

eviltwin wrote: »

Shows what you know. There are many things we do that are medical in nature that we don't need to do and can live without but we do them because of quality of life. That's across the board. I have a kid getting cosmetic dental treatment, she doesn't "need" it, she won't die without it and she can still talk and eat etc but its damaging to her self esteem and confidence, you know mental health?, and that is reason enough to do it.

All the accounts here of physical ailments on this thread, none of those are life threatening are they but they still wouldn't be something you'd take on are they? Quality of life and comfort is important.

Dont make me laugh. You are comparing medical procedures for a child's self esteem issues, to a procedure which actually kills a child by dismemberment-sans-anesthetic? You do realise thats what abortion is?

And of course I'd take on some minor discomforts if it meant saving someone else's life. But I suppose some people just dont have that quality in them.

sullivlo

MOD WARNING

THIS IS A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE. DISCUSS BUT BE RESPECTFUL OF OTHER POSTERS. THIS IS YOUR ONE AND ONLY WARNING. CARDS AND BANS WILL BE USED, AND THE THREAD MAY BE LOCKED.

REMEMBER, THIS IS THE LADIES LOUNGE AND IS A SAFE PLACE FOR WOMEN TO DISCUSS ISSUES FROM A WOMANS POINT OF VIEW.

me_right_one

Well then, from a womans point of view, being a mother is the greatest privilege possible. I would do anything for my kids, your kids, all kids! We are lucky to live in a civilised part of the world where women are respected and safe, and are not treated like property. Regarding MEDICAL reasons for abortion, Irish law permits it fully. I am glad to live in a country where the balance between the right to life of both mother AND CHILD is struck perfectly. This country has a lot to answer for regarding the treatment of children, but at least this is one issue they got right.

eviltwin

me_right_one wrote: »

Dont make me laugh. You are comparing medical procedures for a child's self esteem issues, to a procedure which actually kills a child by dismemberment-sans-anesthetic? You do realise thats what abortion is?

And of course I'd take on some minor discomforts if it meant saving someone else's life. But I suppose some people just dont have that quality in them.

That is your opinion. There is no "child" in most abortions, its a potential child. I know full well what an abortion is, I've had one. I was lucky I was able to go somewhere where there was no psychiatrist interviews and no danger of me being sectioned. What happened to this girl is disgusting. No one should find themselves in this position just because they wanted an abortion.

fits

just don't have the energy to engage with this rubbish.

.......

This post has been deleted.

me_right_one

eviltwin wrote: »

That is your opinion. There is no "child" in most abortions, its a potential child. I know full well what an abortion is, I've had one. I was lucky I was able to go somewhere where there was no psychiatrist interviews and no danger of me being sectioned. What happened to this girl is disgusting. No one should find themselves in this position just because they wanted an abortion.

This is where you are wrong. I am sorry for you and your child that you had an abortion.

sullivlo

me_right_one wrote: »

How exactly is it bullsh1t? If you need a MEDICAL abortion in this country, you can have one. End of story. Otherwise........

Being suicidal is a medical condition.

Being septic is a medical condition.

Fatal foetal abnormality is a medical condition.

Not wanting a child is okay. Forcing a woman to have a child that she doesn't want is inhumane. In my opinion.

eviltwin

me_right_one wrote: »

This is where you are wrong. I am sorry for you and your child that you had an abortion.

Don't be sorry for me, I'm not sorry. It was exactly the right decision for my family and we've never regretted it. And its really none of anyone else's business anyway is it? Save your sorrow for the people in this world who actually are in need of it.

sullivlo

me_right_one wrote: »

This is where you are wrong. I am sorry for you and your child that you had an abortion.

:rolleyes:

Less of the emotive bull. I'm pro-life, absolutely pro-life. But a foetus is a ball of cells. Not a child.

sullivlo

sullivlo wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Less of the emotive bull. I'm pro-life, absolutely pro-life. But a foetus is a ball of cells. Not a child.

... and its possible to be pro-life AND pro-choice.

I don't want an abortion, therefore I won't have an abortion. It's a choice, not a requirement.

me_right_one

sullivlo wrote: »

I'm pro-life, absolutely pro-life. But a foetus is a ball of cells. Not a child.

sullivlo wrote: »

... and its possible to be pro-life AND pro-choice.

I don't want an abortion, therefore I won't have an abortion. It's a choice, not a requirement.

No. You are not pro-life if these are your views.

me_right_one

sullivlo wrote: »

Being suicidal is a medical condition.

It sure is. The remedy there would be a c-section.

sullivlo wrote: »

Being septic is a medical condition.

Yep. And the law states that you can have a termination in such a case. Look it up.

sullivlo wrote: »

Fatal foetal abnormality is a medical condition.

Then allow the child to die with some dignity, and have a funeral.

sullivlo wrote: »

Not wanting a child is okay. Forcing a woman to have a child that she doesn't want is inhumane. In my opinion.

Wrong. Do you really think that killing a child is an acceptable solution? What about adaption? If it was ok to have sex, why is it not ok to raise the child?

Nervous Wreck

me_right_one wrote: »

It sure is. The remedy there would be a c-section.

Wait... are you saying that a woman who is suicidal over the thoughts of having a child she doesn't want is actually just dreading a vaginal birth and would actually be grand if she just had a section? Is that actually your thought process here?

me_right_one

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Wait... are you saying that a woman who is suicidal over the thoughts of having a child she doesn't want is actually just dreading a vaginally birth and would actually be grand if she just had a section? Is that actually your thought process here?

No..... dunno where you got that from. Seriously?

Nervous Wreck

me_right_one wrote: »

No..... dunno where you got that from. Seriously?

I got it from the part of your post where you quoted someone saying beingoes suicidal is a medical condition and you said that the remedy for that is a c section. What else did you mean by that?

sullivlo

me_right_one wrote: »

It sure is. The remedy there would be a c-section.



Yep. And the law states that you can have a termination in such a case. Look it up.



Then allow the child to die with some dignity, and have a funeral.



Wrong. Do you really think that killing a child is an acceptable solution? What about adaption? If it was ok to have sex, why is it not ok to raise the child?

So a woman should be used as an incubator until the foetus reaches 26 weeks and is viable, and then forced to have a c-section against her will?

Salvita...

And force parents to go through the process of burying a child?

And there's more than one reason to have sex.

sullivlo

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I got it from the part of your post where you quoted someone saying beingoes suicidal is a medical condition and you said that the remedy for that is a c section. What else did you mean by that?

I'm guessing that the poster meant forcing the woman to carry the foetus until it's viable, then have a section. As what happened recently to an asylum seeker in Dublin.

me_right_one

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I got it from the part of your post where you quoted someone saying beingoes suicidal is a medical condition and you said that the remedy for that is a c section. What else did you mean by that?

Way to twist things! I did not mean she was "just dreading a vaginal birth", as you put it. I'm struggling to see how you would extrapolate that from my post which suggested saving a child's life by c-sectioning it out from its suicidal mother. Care to explain your reasoning further?

me_right_one

sullivlo wrote: »

So a woman should be used as an incubator until the foetus reaches 26 weeks and is viable, and then forced to have a c-section against her will?

Salvita...

And force parents to go through the process of burying a child?

And there's more than one reason to have sex.

sullivlo wrote: »

I'm guessing that the poster meant forcing the woman to carry the foetus until it's viable, then have a section. As what happened recently to an asylum seeker in Dublin.

Your use of the word "force" there, and your invoking of a tragic death which had nothing to do with abortion, is worrying. Of course nobody is "forced" to go through a funeral for anybody, its just a matter of dignity and respect. And you stated you are pro-life?

robyntmorton

sullivlo wrote: »

So a woman should be used as an incubator until the foetus reaches 26 weeks and is viable, and then forced to have a c-section against her will?

Shall we add to that? C-Section at that stage (i.e. massively premature) is only going to cause massive health problems for the child, and that where possible, sections shouldn't be done until almost 40 weeks, allowing for proper development.

Are you really suggesting that a woman, who is suicidal, be forced to be an incubator for that length of time? What do you do with her to ensure she doesn't harm herself or the foetus? Detain her against her will? Strap her to a bed and sedate her?

How on earth is that loving both equally, and striking a perfect balance?

Nervous Wreck

me_right_one wrote: »

Way to twist things! I did not mean she was "just dreading a vaginal birth", as you put it. I'm struggling to see how you would extrapolate that from my post which suggested saving a child's life by c-sectioning it out from its suicidal mother. Care to explain your reasoning further?

Well no, that's not what you suggested. You said that the remedy would be a c-section. Remedy to what? When you're as vague as you were in your post, you leave people no choice but to draw conclusions based on what little you've said. Maybe you could explain your points clearer?

sullivlo

me_right_one wrote: »

Your use of the word "force" there, and your invoking of a tragic death which had nothing to do with abortion, is worrying. Of course nobody is "forced" to go through a funeral for anybody, its just a matter of dignity and respect. And you stated you are pro-life?

Yes. I'm pro-life. The life of a woman who is living is also important. I just think that the life of a woman is more important than the life of a non-viable ball of cells.

sullivlo

me_right_one wrote: »

Your use of the word "force" there, and your invoking of a tragic death which had nothing to do with abortion, is worrying. Of course nobody is "forced" to go through a funeral for anybody, its just a matter of dignity and respect. And you stated you are pro-life?

and sectioning a suicidal woman until she was 26 weeks gone and then giving her a section is forcing, IMO.

me_right_one

robyntmorton wrote: »

Shall we add to that? C-Section at that stage (i.e. massively premature) is only going to cause massive health problems for the child, and that where possible, sections shouldn't be done until almost 40 weeks, allowing for proper development.

Are you really suggesting that a woman, who is suicidal, be forced to be an incubator for that length of time? What do you do with her to ensure she doesn't harm herself or the foetus? Detain her against her will? Strap her to a bed and sedate her?

How on earth is that loving both equally, and striking a perfect balance?

Ok, so just inject the baby with potassium cyanide into the heart, then let the mother go on her way with suicidal tendencies. Yea, great solution.

Its tough, but if strapping her to the bed SO THAT THEY WILL BOTH LIVE is whats needed, then so be it. FFS, do people have no resilience anymore? Why is killing the baby always the first port of call these days? What is wrong with people?

sullivlo

me_right_one wrote: »

Ok, so just inject the baby with potassium cyanide into the heart, then let the mother go on her way with suicidal tendencies. Yea, great solution.

Its tough, but if strapping her to the bed SO THAT THEY WILL BOTH LIVE is whats needed, then so be it. FFS, do people have no resilience anymore? Why is killing the baby always the first port of call these days? What is wrong with people?

And if the mother is only suicidal because of pregnancy?

me_right_one

sullivlo wrote: »

And if the mother is only suicidal because of pregnancy?

End it with a c-section! 2 people live! Whats your solution?

GritBiscuit

me_right_one wrote: »

If it was ok to have sex, why is it not ok to raise the child?

Yeah - what selfishness...those pesky rape and child abuse victims should abstain...or, uh, revel in their privilege... :eek:

me_right_one wrote: »

Its tough, but if strapping her to the bed SO THAT THEY WILL BOTH LIVE is whats needed, then so be it.

So we lock these women up, tie them to a bed for months to ensure forced gestation followed by unelected surgery? Without a hint of genuine irony that is, in your view, the humanistic and caring answer to these barbaric abortions?! Wow. The mind boggles.

rainbow kirby

me_right_one wrote: »

Its tough, but if strapping her to the bed SO THAT THEY WILL BOTH LIVE is whats needed, then so be it.

That is absolutely disgusting. Women are not incubators and this is not The Handmaid's Tale.

meeeeh

I might be a cynic but did first psychiatrist sectioned the girl just to prevent her traveling for abortion?

Anyway I always laugh how pro lifers pat themselves on the back that they are saving lives when they are just making it more expensive to have an abortion. And it only affects already voulnerable women.

robyntmorton

me_right_one wrote: »

Its tough, but if strapping her to the bed SO THAT THEY WILL BOTH LIVE is whats needed, then so be it.

So, the life of the already living woman is completely secondary to that of the unborn?

What are you going to do after the c-section delivery? Cut the woman loose to deal with her ordeal as best she can or kill herself? Or keep her locked up forever so she can't do anything?

If that's your definition of living, you need to seriously re-evaluate your life.

me_right_one

GritBiscuit wrote: »

So we lock these women up, tie them to a bed for months to ensure forced gestation followed by unelected surgery? Without a hint of genuine irony that is, in your view, the humanistic and caring answer to these barbaric abortions?! Wow. The mind boggles.

rainbow kirby wrote: »

That is absolutely disgusting. Women are not incubators and this is not The Handmaid's Tale.

Without a hint of irony:rolleyes:.... you people seriously believe that killing the child is LESS barbaric? I mean... really? Really?

eviltwin

me_right_one wrote: »

Ok, so just inject the baby with potassium cyanide into the heart, then let the mother go on her way with suicidal tendencies. Yea, great solution.

Its tough, but if strapping her to the bed SO THAT THEY WILL BOTH LIVE is whats needed, then so be it. FFS, do people have no resilience anymore? Why is killing the baby always the first port of call these days? What is wrong with people?

That is a disgusting attitude to have. Women are not incubators. You cannot really think its okay to force a woman to remain a prisoner until her pregnancy is at such a point she is able to have a section. What about her wishes? What about her mental health and the impact of that on her emotional state? Would you really be okay with a woman in your life being forced to be held against her will for no other reason than wanting an abortion?

eviltwin

me_right_one wrote: »

Without a hint of irony:rolleyes:.... you people seriously believe that killing the child is LESS barbaric? I mean... really? Really?

Its not a child!!!!!!!

Nervous Wreck

me_right_one wrote: »

Without a hint of irony:rolleyes:.... you people seriously believe that killing the child is LESS barbaric? I mean... really? Really?

Child?

mahamageehad

I'm unsure if I even want to get involved in this thread, as they tend to descend very quickly into people in extreme camps shouting but not listening to each other. However, I'm interested in the semantics of this case. As far as I was aware, suicide was one of the only grounds where abortion was currently allowed in Ireland. So does this case really pivot on the psychiatrists definition of suicidal? If so, that's pretty worrisome, particularly when the second expert disagrees. Do we have more details on the case i.e. was this recent and she's still sectioned and pregnant, or is it that were only hearing about it now?

sullivlo

me_right_one wrote: »

Without a hint of irony:rolleyes:.... you people seriously believe that killing the child is LESS barbaric? I mean... really? Really?

I really, really hope that you never have the misfortune to be raped and that you never get pregnant as a result of rape and that you never have to carry your rapists baby.

me_right_one

So ripping a child to pieces while it is still alive and flushing it down the toilet is a better answer? Tuam anyone?

Its tough, but yes. Keep the mentally unhinged, suicidal woman "prisoner" temporarily to save the life of someone else. Yes. That is the right thing to do. Then treat her as necessary. If you do not believe this then you really need to re-evaluate where your moral compass is pointed.

Anyway, I'm out. I hope some of you will see sense.

sullivlo

mahamageehad wrote: »

I'm unsure if I even want to get involved in this thread, as they tend to descend very quickly into people in extreme camps shouting but not listening to each other. However, I'm interested in the semantics of this case. As far as I was aware, suicide was one of the only grounds where abortion was currently allowed in Ireland. So does this case really pivot on the psychiatrists definition of suicidal? If so, that's pretty worrisome, particularly when the second expert disagrees. Do we have more details on the case i.e. was this recent and she's still sectioned and pregnant, or is it that were only hearing about it now?

I think it was a case from last year. My reading of it was that the child presented as being suicidal and was referred to somewhere in Dublin. The child and mother assumed that this was for an abortion, but on arrival the child was sectioned rather than given an abortion. The mother complained and a second psychiatrist reassessed her and deemed the section unnescessary. I'm not sure whether the abortion was granted, the child traveled or the pregnancy continued.

meeeeh

me_right_one wrote: »

Without a hint of irony:rolleyes:.... you people seriously believe that killing the child is LESS barbaric? I mean... really? Really?

Don't be so hysterical. Majority of Europe finds it less barbaric yes. But I think you views would find some support in among people with six toes in backwards parts of America.

robyntmorton

me_right_one wrote: »

I hope some of you will see sense.

I was hoping just the same for you.

rainbow kirby

me_right_one wrote: »

Without a hint of irony:rolleyes:.... you people seriously believe that killing the child is LESS barbaric? I mean... really? Really?

For over 90% of terminations (1st trimester) we're talking something that's between the size of a full stop and the size of a lemon, is not sentient, cannot live independently and cannot feel pain. Of course I value the rights of the person who is carrying it more than that.