nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Does anyone feel insulted by the abortion proposals?

lazygal

I don't know where to post. Its a bit of a ranting and raving post but I can't put it there. I feel so, so, so belittled as a woman by the suggestion that a woman seeking abortion on grounds of suicide would face some sort of tribunal of inquiry. The fact it was even bandied about as a proposal at all annoys me. I'm pregnant right now and I feel like my husband and daughter will be put in a position where they might have to face life without me, because even if my health is in serious danger right now, unless I might die I won't receive treatment.

I know this is a rambling, incoherent mess of a post but I'm just so angry and upset and insulted by the current bandying about of the difficulties the state wants women to face in the abortion debate.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

The Niece

I'm glad this thread is here....I read an article on rte this morning and turned unbelievably angry that something like this will be seriously considered without any suggested consideration to the woman, the country is turning into a nanny state by thinking that people are not capable of making their own decisions and are not addressing the issue from where this new debate came from...it's like bush going after saddam when bin Ladan attacked the country

apologies for the general tone but I'm still annoyed after reading these proposals and in no fit state to comment on everyone's posts

Lyaiera

pwurple wrote: »

It was only the 1980's when that ammendment about right to life of unborn went in, and it was specifically to ban abortions, wasn't it?

The three since that one were the right to travel, and freedom of speech. The suicide one was defeated.

What those did, was crystallise and personalise abortion in peoples minds... They started thinking, well, I would do it in this circumstance, but not this circumstance, and maybe this circumstance. And that thought process continues today all over the airwaves. Incompatible with life - sure, downs syndrome - maybe, suicidal - are they faking it. It's all a giant waste of cognitive effort.

None of that is ever ever going to be feasible to legislate for. The publics mood changes with the breeze, and it is far too subjective.

Plus realistically, probing into each pregnant womans affairs to query why she wants this done... Who on this green earth is ever going to be qualified to do that job? And how long would it take to evaluate per case? We have all been on the crappy end of the HSE's waiting list system. What are we talking here.... 9 months maybe?

You're right. I was getting mixed up on things.

Edit: I was thinking of the role of the mother in the home part of the constitution.

rainbow kirby

pwurple wrote: »

It was only the 1980's when that ammendment about right to life of unborn went in, and it was specifically to ban abortions, wasn't it?

1983, and that amendment only passed by a relatively small margin then. Irish society has changed massively since then, the youngest people who would have voted then are in their late forties now, there are a hell of a lot of people who have never got to have their say on the issue.

wolfpawnat

Macha wrote: »

Actually what I said was true: they've refused to be involved in these abortion panels, saying they will not be the country's "social police". And they've called the proposed system "abusive":

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0424/385417-psychiatrists-will-not-take-part-in-abortion-panel/

I think you might be confusing the views of one vocal psychiatrist, Patricia Casey, with the views of the majority.

Sorry, you may be right there. I have read and listened to so much on this subject and Savita recently, it all can merge into one jumble in my head!

wolfpawnat

I think it needs to be put to referendum, and the decision left to the people of Ireland, and if it stays pro-life or goes pro-choice, the other side just accept the outcome and leave it at that. This is all going mad!

pwurple

Lyaiera wrote: »

Those questions were posed because the drafting of the constitution created the unforeseen problem. No one had considered what it would mean for abortions when it was written. When there were the referenda only the bare minimum was asked: whether to allow the small, strict availability of abortion or to rewrite the constitution. Not enough people would have voted for a rewriting of the constitution to ban abortion, not enough people who have voted for proper access to abortion, so the middle ground was the path of least resistance.

It was only the 1980's when that ammendment about right to life of unborn went in, and it was specifically to ban abortions, wasn't it?

The three since that one were the right to travel, and freedom of speech. The suicide one was defeated.

What those did, was crystallise and personalise abortion in peoples minds... They started thinking, well, I would do it in this circumstance, but not this circumstance, and maybe this circumstance. And that thought process continues today all over the airwaves. Incompatible with life - sure, downs syndrome - maybe, suicidal - are they faking it. It's all a giant waste of cognitive effort.

None of that is ever ever going to be feasible to legislate for. The publics mood changes with the breeze, and it is far too subjective.

Plus realistically, probing into each pregnant womans affairs to query why she wants this done... Who on this green earth is ever going to be qualified to do that job? And how long would it take to evaluate per case? We have all been on the crappy end of the HSE's waiting list system. What are we talking here.... 9 months maybe?

Macha

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Can't remember where I read it, but there was a statement that the last thing to worry about if you are suicidal is a pregnancy, but to focus on the depression as a whole.

But as I said, six is insane! Two, grand, three at a stretch, a very bloody big one at that! There was a proposal apparently at one stage to go through a panel of up to 12! That is sick.

Actually what I said was true: they've refused to be involved in these abortion panels, saying they will not be the country's "social police". And they've called the proposed system "abusive":

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0424/385417-psychiatrists-will-not-take-part-in-abortion-panel/

I think you might be confusing the views of one vocal psychiatrist, Patricia Casey, with the views of the majority.

Lyaiera wrote: »

Those questions were posed because the drafting of the constitution created the unforeseen problem. No one had considered what it would mean for abortions when it was written. When there were the referenda only the bare minimum was asked: whether to allow the small, strict availability of abortion or to rewrite the constitution. Not enough people would have voted for a rewriting of the constitution to ban abortion, not enough people who have voted for proper access to abortion, so the middle ground was the path of least resistance.

I don't think we can say that the problem was entirely unforeseen. This predicament was predicted by a number of individuals, including Pat Rabbitte if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps more clearly, it was also identified by Mary Robinson. You can see her interview about it at this link:

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/04/04/and-so-it-came-to-pass/

lazygal

Lyaiera wrote: »

Those questions were posed because the drafting of the constitution created the unforeseen problem. No one had considered what it would mean for abortions when it was written. When there were the referenda only the bare minimum was asked: whether to allow the small, strict availability of abortion or to rewrite the constitution. Not enough people would have voted for a rewriting of the constitution to ban abortion, not enough people who have voted for proper access to abortion, so the middle ground was the path of least resistance.

There's no mention of abortion in the original constitution. Amendment eight is the problem, created by anti abortion hysteria in the 1980s, fuelled by more liberal contraception attitudes and conservative Catholic nutjobs. We created a problem where none existed, if the amendment hadn't been passed the 1861 act could have been repealed or updated by new,primary legislation.

Lyaiera

pwurple wrote: »

This whole mess is caused by those ridiculous referendums (referenda?).

Abortion should be either allowed up to certain gestation, or not at all. Trying to limit it based on the woman's motivation , is an impossible task, for any legislators.

What on earth people were thinking with their voting, or why those questions were even posed is still beyond me.

Those questions were posed because the drafting of the constitution created the unforeseen problem. No one had considered what it would mean for abortions when it was written. When there were the referenda only the bare minimum was asked: whether to allow the small, strict availability of abortion or to rewrite the constitution. Not enough people would have voted for a rewriting of the constitution to ban abortion, not enough people who have voted for proper access to abortion, so the middle ground was the path of least resistance.

pwurple

This whole mess is caused by those ridiculous referendums (referenda?).

Abortion should be either allowed up to certain gestation, or not at all. Trying to limit it based on the woman's motivation , is an impossible task, for any legislators.

What on earth people were thinking with their voting, or why those questions were even posed is still beyond me.

wolfpawnat

Macha wrote: »

What is their stance? I heard somewhere that the Irish association of psychiatrists had refused to participate in the proposed system of 6.

If two is enough to get you locked away for life, two should be more than enough for this. Anything more is inhumane.

I have to just say I'm completely disgusted by this debate and the Fine Gael backbenchers who are putting the brakes on this issue.

Can't remember where I read it, but there was a statement that the last thing to worry about if you are suicidal is a pregnancy, but to focus on the depression as a whole.

But as I said, six is insane! Two, grand, three at a stretch, a very bloody big one at that! There was a proposal apparently at one stage to go through a panel of up to 12! That is sick.

Macha

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Though I could come under fire for this, I side with the majority of psychiatrists and obstetricians on the Mental Health stance HOWEVER if it is to be covered by the legislation discussed, I think six is far too many, two fine, three at a stretch, but six! And who pays for this? Sounds like a bit of a money racket really.

What is their stance? I heard somewhere that the Irish association of psychiatrists had refused to participate in the proposed system of 6.

If two is enough to get you locked away for life, two should be more than enough for this. Anything more is inhumane.

I have to just say I'm completely disgusted by this debate and the Fine Gael backbenchers who are putting the brakes on this issue.

wolfpawnat

Though I could come under fire for this, I side with the majority of psychiatrists and obstetricians on the Mental Health stance HOWEVER if it is to be covered by the legislation discussed, I think six is far too many, two fine, three at a stretch, but six! And who pays for this? Sounds like a bit of a money racket really.

Treehousetim

A system making more money for elitist professionals is what they are trying to design, no doubt lots of legal fees would also be incurred. Same old same old.

Ilyana 2.0

lazygal wrote: »

In fairness, young people need to get more proactive about reregistering their vote when moving from their home towns. Student unions could be doing a better job in this area, rather than complaining that people can't go 'home' to vote.

That's true, although it's hard to know where you'll be living year on year too.

But the fact is that most young people are registered in their home towns and I'm sure the government is aware of that. Yet this fact didn't stop it holding the 2011 referendum on a Thursday, iirc.

lazygal

Ilyana 2.0 wrote: »

If a referendum to repeal the 8th amendment was ever held, you can guarantee that it would be held on a Thursday - preventing young people living away from their constituency from voting.

In fairness, young people need to get more proactive about reregistering their vote when moving from their home towns. Student unions could be doing a better job in this area, rather than complaining that people can't go 'home' to vote.

Ilyana 2.0

meeeeh wrote: »

I think the explanation is a lot simpler. The pro life or pro choice groups don't really matter number wise in elections. The problem is the not overly fussed majority and among those older people are more likely to be against abortion and more likely to vote. Get younger people and those in urban areas to vote and parties will quickly change their abortion stance.

If a referendum to repeal the 8th amendment was ever held, you can guarantee that it would be held on a Thursday - preventing young people living away from their constituency from voting.

meeeeh

Faith wrote: »

I think the pro-life side feel that they are on the correct moral ground, and feel more comfortable being VERY vocal. Many, many people who are pro-choice keep quiefor fear of negative reactions.

I think the explanation is a lot simpler. The pro life or pro choice groups don't really matter number wise in elections. The problem is the not overly fussed majority and among those older people are more likely to be against abortion and more likely to vote. Get younger people and those in urban areas to vote and parties will quickly change their abortion stance.

Ilyana 2.0

The way that women are treated in this country is despicable.

The part that gets me is that the majority of legislators in the Oireachtas will never, ever have to deal with an unwanted or unviable pregnancy themselves.

I really do feel like we have no voice.

meganj

lazygal wrote: »

I'm pretty sure Senator Mullen has his own agenda.

Not sure if being an unempathetic idiot is an agenda... But if it was that'd be Senator Mullen's.

Such a wanker.

Ken.

I love the way in this country people not even elected by us get to decide what's good for us. Sooner the better the Seanad is done away with and these failed politicians are f*cked out on the street the better.

lazygal

username123 wrote: »

Ugh, I wish we could ban the word agenda. Typical that it was being used in that manner.

Can an individual not just feel strongly about something and have a personal opinion without having an agenda?

I'm pretty sure Senator Mullen has his own agenda.

username123

lazygal wrote: »

....of having a wider agenda by Ronan Mullen.

Ugh, I wish we could ban the word agenda. Typical that it was being used in that manner.

Can an individual not just feel strongly about something and have a personal opinion without having an agenda?

lazygal

Faith wrote: »

I think the pro-life side feel that they are on the correct moral ground, and feel more comfortable being VERY vocal. Many, many people who are pro-choice keep quiet for fear of negative reactions.

Women who spoke to deputies and senators about termination for fatal abnormalities in Leinster House were accused of having a wider agenda by Ronan Mullen. That's what you're up against.

Tigger99

Or that they are then seen as pro-abortion and anti-babies instead of pro-choice

Faith

username123 wrote: »

This is the bit that worries me. Id like to think its true but then I see the awful vicious hate spewing comments on any kind of forum debate about abortion, or in the comments section of news sites where it really seems that a LOT of people are not pro-choice. Not by a long shot.

This site is quite different, and at a guess Id imagine that its due to the age profile of the users and the fact that we are posting about this in The Ladies Lounge. If you look at some other websites its kind of scary.

I think the pro-life side feel that they are on the correct moral ground, and feel more comfortable being VERY vocal. Many, many people who are pro-choice keep quiet for fear of negative reactions.

username123

Morag wrote: »

I can't see it changing until tds and politcal parties see that there are more votes in being pro choice and pro women's health and lives

This is the bit that worries me. Id like to think its true but then I see the awful vicious hate spewing comments on any kind of forum debate about abortion, or in the comments section of news sites where it really seems that a LOT of people are not pro-choice. Not by a long shot.

This site is quite different, and at a guess Id imagine that its due to the age profile of the users and the fact that we are posting about this in The Ladies Lounge. If you look at some other websites its kind of scary.

FouxDaFaFa

It's stuff like this that makes me feel helpless and completely impotent regarding change in society. I've emailed my local TDs numerous times. I participate in marches and protests. But I know that any mention of repealing the 8th Amendment will unleash a hellstorm of vitriol.

I worry about how unbalanced the funding is in the pro-life and pro-choice groups. American pro-life groups are so powerful in relation to Ireland's size that they can drown out the pro-choice side with money and co-ordinated campaigns as easily as swatting a fly. But I don't feel I should be able to dictate where organisations like Youth Defence get their money either just because I disagree with them.

It's exhausting before you even begin, you know?

Morag

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

What annoys me is that even if this legislation passes, doctors have to wait for a woman to get that sick to receive treatment. Why wait? Why can't we be adults about it and say "I'm sorry, this pregnancy has no chance of being viable. We'll terminate now rather than risk the woman's health. It will hopefully lessen the amount of emotional and physical trauma she goes through".

Because of the wording of the 8th amendment, there has to be a greater risk to a woman's life for them to do the procedure as the amendment to the Constitution put the life of the 'unborn' (no matter what stage of the pregnancy, even when miscarrying or in the case of fatal fetal abnormality) on equal footing with the life of the woman.

A woman's health doesn't get a look in.

I can't see it changing until tds and politcal parties see that there are more votes in being pro choice and pro women's health and lives, which means we have to let them know and we have to make it an election issue and press for the 8th amendment to be repealed.

lazygal

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/04/24/talk-anti-choice-like-a-boss/