clairefontaine wrote: » So then why are they treating it like it is one? Don't you think it compromises the health professionals? Don't you think medication should be applied to that a suicidal woman with prenatal depression can make a rational choice? Are they going to give her an abortion and then hospitalise her in a mental institution because she is a risk to herself? It's the dark ages again I guess.
B0jangles wrote: » As I understand it, the suicide inclusion is specifically to cover situations where the pregnant woman feels suicidal specifically because she cannot face continuing with an unwanted pregnancy, no one has seriously suggested that a person with existing, long-term suicidal thoughts unconnected to pregnancy will be magically cured of them if they have an abortion. That's a strawman created by and then vigorously waved around by the anti-choice groups.
wonderfulname wrote: » Personally, as someone who has suffered with depression, I'm offended by people who hold your opinion and slightly jealous of your ignorance. I've been through my share of medication, these were never "cures", they were necessary last resorts, I dropped out of university with the blessing of mental health professionals (I had to check I wasn't allowing myself make a terrible decision based on a hopefully temporary mental state, they agreed with me, I'm still incredibly glad I did it), this was never a "cure", it was a necessary move to manage my health, I will most likely go back some day, my mental heath has been built on and improved greatly since then, but I have never been "cured" of anything, there was never something to be "cured", and I will never be able to claim my current mental state will last forever. Go back to the last sentence, sub pregnancy for university. Nobody is treating abortion as a cure, because there is no cure, but that doesn't mean it may not be necessary.
clairefontaine wrote: » I don't know whom Ronan Mullen is so I can't comment on that. Exactly. You can't cure suicide by abortion. I'f a woman has pre natal depression or some other cause of suicidal ideation or attempts, most doctors would apply regular recognised treatments, such as therapy and medication. I doubt abortion is recognised by any reputable mental health authority to treat depressive states. They should either allow abortion or not allow it. This policy is a mockery and an embarrassment.
clairefontaine wrote: » The suicide clause looks very very flawed. It just doesn't make any sense.
YumCha wrote: » It's in there because a fourteen year old was raped and became suicidal as a result of the ensuing pregnancy. What doesn't make sense? I admit I haven't read the text of the Bill in full, but I'm so so ranty about the bits I have read for the following reasons: 1. It doesn't mention abortion once. Instead it repeatedly refers to either the "destruction/destroying of unborn life" - way to demonise women who are already in difficult situations, say like the aforementioned 14 YEAR OLD WHO WAS RAPED. 2. Even though it won't affect the right to travel to another state, it still explicitly says that "It shall be an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life." And the maximum possible sentence is FOURTEEN YEARS, which is on par with sexually assaulting someone under 17, or hijacking a car while possessing a firearm. So even though you can still travel - the government just wants you to know that it thinks of you on the same terms as pedophiles. 3. It allows conscientious objections in the case of 'non-emergency' risk of loss of life, or suicide - because hey, neither of those sound particularly urgent and sure, what would be better for someone at risk of loss of life and/or suicidal to be turned away and need to go find another hospital? I can't say that any of this is a surprise from the initial draft - but I had a sliver of hope that in the interim they would have attempted to get their blatant misogyny under control...
clairefontaine wrote: » And people accepted this? Is this what has been voted in?
YumCha wrote: » If you're referring to the clause about suicidal ideation - then yes - there has been not one, but two referenda on this specific point. Just to recap on this point, in the 1992 Referenda: To nullify the X Case decision by removing the risk of suicide as a grounds for obtaining a legally permissible abortion in Ireland - REJECTED And in the 2002 Referendum: Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill, 2002 which would remove threat of suicide as a ground for abortion and increase the penalties for helping a woman have an abortion. REJECTED
clairefontaine wrote: » So as it stands now, a woman can get an abortion if she has suicidal ideation after she conceives and for the duration of the pregnancy? And without restrictions on term limits?
YumCha wrote: » Minister James Reilly has already stated that in cases where the foetus would be viable outside the womb, there will be no right to an abortion as it would be in breach of the constitution.
YumCha wrote: » 3. It allows conscientious objections in the case of 'non-emergency' risk of loss of life, or suicide - because hey, neither of those sound particularly urgent and sure, what would be better for someone at risk of loss of life and/or suicidal to be turned away and need to go find another hospital?
inocybe wrote: » Reading a pro-life letter published in a newspaper, I was dismayed to see the signatures of practically all of the consultant obstetricians at my local hospital. What happens if all of the doctors present opt out. I can imagine you'd get nurses refusing as well. Will women end up as pariahs stuck in the corner of the gyne ward with people refusing to serve them food? That will certainly help someone who feels suicidal :mad:
FouxDaFaFa wrote: » I was wondering about this. I'm not familiar with the law in this area but would appreciate if someone could clarify what would happen if a woman was in imminent danger of death if she didn't receive a termination but there was no-one around willing to perform it? Are medical professionals compelled to save the woman in that circumstance or would their personal beliefs allow them not to intervene? Basically, can doctors be compelled to do this and could they be held accountable if they didn't and a woman died?
YumCha wrote: » I can't say that any of this is a surprise from the initial draft - but I had a sliver of hope that in the interim they would have attempted to get their blatant misogyny under control...
clairefontaine wrote: » I'm really not sure who should be treated for being crazy.
clairefontaine wrote: » Anyone can drop out of college. They don't need a panel of psychiatrists' permission to do that. If you bring in suicide exemption clauses for this, then why not euthenasia or any other act Irish law views as criminal? I'm pointing out the irrational nature of how they are going about things. It was not necessary for you to personalise it by choosing to be offended by the false logic in what is being proposed, nor do I need or want your autobiography.
clairefontaine wrote: » Anyone can drop out of college. They don't need a panel of psychiatrists' permission to do that. If you bring in suicide exemption clauses for this, then why not euthenasia or any other act Irish law views as criminal? I'm pointing out the irrational nature of how they are going about things.It was not necessary for you to personalise it by choosing to be offended by the false logic in what is being proposed, nor do I need or want your autobiography.
FouxDaFaFa wrote: » It is, though. And it has been for 20 years or so. I'm sorry you're distressed but this is legislation that will only be enacted when a pregnant woman is dying. Not sick, dying. Regardless of your views, surely you have to empathise with women in this position?
Bluegrass1 wrote: » Oh, yes of course it is the law and more is the pity. Not sick, dying you say -But what about the suicide issue? If one is a good enough actress one can easily threaten to pull than one off.
lazygal wrote: » Why do you have such a low opinion of women? I'm pregnant, and have no intention of 'acting' in a certain way to avail of medical treatment.
MaxWig wrote: » Well why didn't you say so. That's good enough for me. If you have no intention of lying, then I'm pretty sure we can assume that this homogenous group, 'women' will act in exactly the same way. Glad that's cleared up. Where does this assumption of benevolence come from? It really rubs me up the wrong way. Women don't lie? Or is it that when they become pregnant, they lose the ability to lie? Confuses the hell out of me.
eviltwin wrote: » Rainbow Kirby rightly mention a few pages back that the kinds of women who will need abortion here are those who are in very vulnerable positions, people in those situations tend to be the ones most at prone of depression so why is it such a huge leap to think they might act on that?
MaxWig wrote: » I say that with respect
lazygal wrote: » It confuses me as to why the suggestion that women lie, and will lie Do you think all women who say they are suicidal during prengnacy are liars? Should we not allow any treatment under that category because some women may lie?
MaxWig wrote: » So its less of a leap to think they would kill themselves than lie? Think there may be some skewed logic at play here. And I say that with respect
eviltwin wrote: » No but you have to look at the reality of the lives those women are living. They are in a vulnerable place and that alone carries risks of depression. Add to that the pressure of an unwanted pregnancy and those women might feel its too much for them. Its not to say none of them will lie but its a heck of a risk to take when other women with more choices can freely access abortion in the UK.
