Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

gctest50 · 15-12-2020 3:52am

Mules wrote: »

Regardless of the views of the journalist, the study you posted details the facts. They are no different than what's in the indo article.

A couple of FMSs commented on the relief experienced when the baby dies, confirming that their diagnosis was ‘right’. Their fear of getting it wrong is associated with the ‘difficult’ legislation,and that ‘under the legislation, [they] can’t have babies who survive for a long period of time’, i.e. beyond the28 days referenced within the legislation. Legislative challenges were identified by most participants, primarily ambiguity, ‘understanding what the legislation allows for’ and which conditions are deemed fatal

gctest50 · 15-12-2020 4:27am

Mules wrote: »

Regardless of the views of the journalist, the study you posted details the facts. They are no different than what's in the indo article.

No ?

Internal conflict and emotional challenges

To be honest, I struggled with this quite a bit. But I’ve seen so many women traumatised in this situation, the fatal fetal and lethal, LLCs (life-limiting conditions), that I think the right thing for that group is to offer this treatment in Ireland

It is always very sad and emotional, it is difficult but something that I guess I have been doing for a long time and I am aware that I am doing it for a long time. It doesn’t necessarily mean it is easier, it is always very sad

I remember getting sick out in the corridors afterwards because I thought it (feticide) was such an awful procedure and so dreadful. You have to see the positive in it otherwise you would drive yourself mad

Ultimately you feel some degree of positivity if you get people through. And then if you see them back in another pregnancy and they’ve made it and so on, that’s good

Mules · 15-12-2020 4:29am

gctest50 wrote: »

A couple of FMSs commented on the relief experienced when the baby dies, confirming that their diagnosis was ‘right’. Their fear of getting it wrong is associated with the ‘difficult’ legislation,and that ‘under the legislation, [they] can’t have babies who survive for a long period of time’, i.e. beyond the28 days referenced within the legislation. Legislative challenges were identified by most participants, primarily ambiguity, ‘understanding what the legislation allows for’ and which conditions are deemed fatal

What did they mean by getting it wrong?

lazygal · 15-12-2020 7:50am

I presume they mean the condition might not be "fatal enough " as per the restrictive legislation.

Hotblack Desiato · 15-12-2020 10:17am

Yeah then there's the prospect of 14 years in prison for carrying out a medical procedure in good faith.

lazygal · 15-12-2020 12:04pm

Mules wrote: »

I read the article in the independent about the report in to late term abortions in Ireland. It describes babies being born alive and left to die. I support abortion but that is seriously wrong. .

These are babies who are being held by their parents as they die because they have fatal abnormalities.

Many medical procedures sound horrible when described outside of a medical context. But this 'babies born alive and left to die' is a phrase used by Youth Defence/LoveBoth/Iona Institute to try to roll back access to abortions for people who have had to travel for decades to get medical care and then get their babies' ashes in the post weeks later.

It is nothing more than a disingenuous tactic to try to restrict and then eliminate all access to abortion, using emotive and misleading language.

And if, as prolife people believe, all abortion is wrong, why are later term abortions the focus here? Does abortion get more wrong the later in the pregnancy it happens or something?

smacl · 15-12-2020 12:09pm

gctest50 wrote: »

That's a link to part of an opinion piece by some patron of the Iona Institute

Any link to the actual study ?

Mod warning: Post edited. While many here have no time for the Iona Instute, let's keep it civil and avoid anything that could be construed as defamatory.

volchitsa · 15-12-2020 1:19pm

Mules wrote: »

The problem the doctors are having is it's not fatal as in the fetus is born dead or near death.. It's that it can live for weeks or months so it's not black and white. When I thought of fatal during the referendum, I thought it meant 'will be born dead or will die immediately' The study quotes a description given as 'not fatal enough' I think that's a good description.

That's still pretty black and white to me. A baby that dies of something that it had from birth and that can't be treated is fatally ill even if it takes months for death to occur.

Mules · 15-12-2020 8:44pm

lazygal wrote: »

These are babies who are being held by their parents as they die because they have fatal abnormalities.

Many medical procedures sound horrible when described outside of a medical context. But this 'babies born alive and left to die' is a phrase used by Youth Defence/LoveBoth/Iona Institute to try to roll back access to abortions for people who have had to travel for decades to get medical care and then get their babies' ashes in the post weeks later.

It is nothing more than a disingenuous tactic to try to restrict and then eliminate all access to abortion, using emotive and misleading language.

And if, as prolife people believe, all abortion is wrong, why are later term abortions the focus here? Does abortion get more wrong the later in the pregnancy it happens or something?

I think the phrase was used by the doctor, maybe not in those exact words, I'd have to look at the study. Someone posted a link up thread

I'm very uncomfortable with abortion when it's late enough in the pregnancy that the fetus would survive outside the womb. I'd imagine that's what pro life people think too. It makes it seem like a baby rather than a fetus.

I never have seen abortion in black and white. It's very complicated for me. It's an issue that I find it very hard to decide what the right thing is.

Mules · 15-12-2020 8:46pm

volchitsa wrote: »

That's still pretty black and white to me. A baby that dies of something that it had from birth and that can't be treated is fatally ill even if it takes months for death to occur.

Looking at it dispassionately I would agree with you. Usually I'm not an emotional decision maker but not in this situation.

ohnonotgmail · 15-12-2020 8:49pm

Mules wrote: »

I think the phrase was used by the doctor, maybe not in those exact words, I'd have to look at the study. Someone posted a link up thread

Not fatal enough = Will kill the baby but not guaranteed to do so within the 28 days mentioned in legislation.

Mules · 15-12-2020 8:59pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Not fatal enough = Will kill the baby but not guaranteed to do so within the 28 days mentioned in legislation.

I can imagine that deciding whether a condition is or isn't fatal within a set time is very hard. All you could go by are the average survival rate with that particular condition. I can imagine the doctors would be uneasy about it.

Whatever about the doctors, it must be such an awful decision for the parents. It's the stuff of worst nightmares

Igotadose · 15-12-2020 9:02pm

10 'specialists' in Ireland being interviewed, does not a study make. More to follow, but this is a lightweight study

Mules · 15-12-2020 9:04pm

Igotadose wrote: »

10 'specialists' in Ireland being interviewed, does not a study make. More to follow, but this is a lightweight study

I would wonder how many specialists in this area there are? I can't imagine there are many, particularly as abortion hasn't been legalised that long.

Bannasidhe · 15-12-2020 9:20pm

Mules wrote: »

I'm very uncomfortable with abortion when it's late enough in the pregnancy that the fetus would survive outside the womb. I'd imagine that's what pro life people think too. It makes it seem like a baby rather than a fetus.

I never have seen abortion in black and white. It's very complicated for me. It's an issue that I find it very hard to decide what the right thing is.

'Aborting' the pregnancy does not mean ending life. It means ending the pregnancy.
Late term abortion can also refer to labour being induced/caesarean section resulting in a live premature birth.

Pro-life people like to muddy the waters by deliberately failing to be precise with the terms they use. "Late -term" is left vague due to it's emotive value.

Technically my pregnancy was aborted - as I was induced due to complications. The 'fetus' is now a 36 year old man.

The 'right thing to do' imo is allow it to be a private matter between the person who is pregnant and their doctors.

Also imo the only people who would believe that anyone would carry a pregnancy for 6/7/8 months and then decide to terminate *insert 'just because' reason here* has never been pregnant.

Mules · 15-12-2020 9:28pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

'Aborting' the pregnancy does not mean ending life. It means ending the pregnancy.
Late term abortion can also refer to labour being induced/caesarean section resulting in a live premature birth.

Pro-life people like to muddy the waters by deliberately failing to be precise with the terms they use. "Late -term" is left vague due to it's emotive value.

Technically my pregnancy was aborted - as I was induced due to complications. The 'fetus' is now a 36 year old man.

The 'right thing to do' imo is allow it to be a private matter between the person who is pregnant and their doctors.

Also imo the only people who would believe that anyone would carry a pregnancy for 6/7/8 months and then decide to terminate *insert 'just because' reason here* has never been pregnant.

Ya, I can only imagine what a difficult decision it would be. It's an awful thing to happen to someone.

Bannasidhe · 15-12-2020 9:32pm

Mules wrote: »

Ya, I can only imagine what a difficult decision it would be. It's an awful thing to happen to someone.

Not necessarily.
Sometimes the being pregnant is the awful thing - for many different reasons, and the no longer being pregnant is a relief.

Mules · 15-12-2020 9:36pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not necessarily.
Sometimes the being pregnant is the awful thing - for many different reasons, and the no longer being pregnant is a relief.

I hadn't thought of that. Fortunately I've never been in that situation.

lazygal · 16-12-2020 8:56am

In the very unlikely event I got pregnant again it wouldn't be a heart rending difficult decision to have an abortion. I'm done having children so the only hard thing would be having to wait three days under the Coveney compromise to get the pills I need.

Hotblack Desiato · 16-12-2020 6:31pm

Because you haven't really thought it over until a man has told you to think it over... :rolleyes:

lazygal · 16-12-2020 6:45pm

The notions of mandatory counselling or a wait are proof positive that women are seen as silly things who don't know what they want. It should be mandatory to wait and have counselling before men have sex each and every time in case they get someone pregnant.

eviltwin · 16-12-2020 7:23pm

lazygal wrote: »

The notions of mandatory counselling or a wait are proof positive that women are seen as silly things who don't know what they want. It should be mandatory to wait and have counselling before men have sex each and every time in case they get someone pregnant.

I hate the idea of forced counselling. It’s not like it isn’t available for those who want it. As you say it just perpetuates the idea that women are a bit ditzy and unable to make decisions on their own and the idea that abortion is somehow wrong or worse than having a child even though that has a bigger impact on ones life. We don’t have mandatory counselling for women who have babies, it shouldn’t be compulsory to access abortion.

lazygal · 16-12-2020 7:51pm

My consultant didn't suggest counselling before my tubal ligation either. As an adult she respected my reproductive choices.

Hotblack Desiato · 16-12-2020 10:28pm

robindch · 17-12-2020 11:36am

lazygal wrote: »

The notions of mandatory counselling or a wait are proof positive that women are seen as silly things who don't know what they want.

I'm not so sure. I believe that anti-abortionists introduce mandatory delays, not because they believe that women are stupid, but because they want to make it harder for women to procure abortions by adding more steps to the process or by lengthening the process.

I'd also imagine that at least some pro-abortion people believe that what's essentially a "cooling-off period" is reasonable to include, at least in some cases. Cooling off periods are used, for example, in finance where a customer is given a period of time following the signing of some financial agreement during which they can decide to reverse their decision without penalty. They're there not because people are considered stupid - though some people have told me definitely that they are - but because sometimes people have second thoughts or found a better deal elsewhere in the interim.

volchitsa · 17-12-2020 11:53am

robindch wrote: »

I'm not so sure. I believe that anti-abortionists introduce mandatory delays, not because they believe that women are stupid, but because they want to make it harder for women to procure abortions by adding more steps to the process or by lengthening the process.

I'd also imagine that at least some pro-abortion people believe that what's essentially a "cooling-off period" is reasonable to include, at least in some cases. Cooling off periods are used, for example, in finance where a customer is given a period of time following the signing of some financial agreement during which they can decide to reverse their decision without penalty. They're there not because people are considered stupid - though some people have told me definitely that they are - but because sometimes people have second thoughts or found a better deal elsewhere in the interim.

The cooling off period for big purchases or loans is needed because people are actively being talked into committing by salespeople who are good at convincing you to do something - that's their job.

There's nothing similar with abortion.

Igotadose · 17-12-2020 4:20pm

volchitsa wrote: »

The cooling off period for big purchases or loans is needed because people are actively being talked into committing by salespeople who are good at convincing you to do something - that's their job.

There's nothing similar with abortion.

A report on the waiting off periods as used and their effectiveness. Recommendation is, don't have them

https://www.dovepress.com/mandatory-waiting-periods-before-abortion-and-sterilization-theory-and-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-IJWH

lazygal · 17-12-2020 4:24pm

robindch wrote: »

I'm not so sure. I believe that anti-abortionists introduce mandatory delays, not because they believe that women are stupid, but because they want to make it harder for women to procure abortions by adding more steps to the process or by lengthening the process.

I'd also imagine that at least some pro-abortion people believe that what's essentially a "cooling-off period" is reasonable to include, at least in some cases. Cooling off periods are used, for example, in finance where a customer is given a period of time following the signing of some financial agreement during which they can decide to reverse their decision without penalty. They're there not because people are considered stupid - though some people have told me definitely that they are - but because sometimes people have second thoughts or found a better deal elsewhere in the interim.

Why did you feel the need to explain things to me?

robindch · 17-12-2020 7:47pm

lazygal wrote: »

Why did you feel the need to explain things to me?

Good heavens, I'm not "explaining" things to you. I am putting forward my beliefs and my point of view - please read my post carefully - on this specific area on the understanding that this we are both taking part in a discussion.

As to your question - I wrote as I did because you claimed that mandatory delays are introduced for one reason only, while I believe that there may be other reasons as well.

robindch · 17-12-2020 8:01pm

volchitsa wrote: »

The cooling off period for big purchases or loans is needed because people are actively being talked into committing by salespeople who are good at convincing you to do something - that's their job.

In addition to big purchases and loans, cooling-off periods are also part of many (all?) insurance and assurance policies, all goods and services purchased in the EU over the phone, by mail order as well - as you correctly point out - the riskier sales that happen at the behest of a pushy salesperson.

There's no presumption that I can find that the cooling-off period is there because the legislators (or the service providers) believe that the consumer might be one of those (as above) "silly things who don't know what they want".

Igotadose wrote: »

https://www.dovepress.com/mandatory-waiting-periods-before-abortion-and-sterilization-theory-and-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-IJWH

"Concern about the validity of consent is best addressed by protective clinical guidelines rather than through rigid legislation."

Thanks for the link - the comment about validity of consent is quite correct.

Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Comments