Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Does anyone feel insulted by the abortion proposals?

1…2425272930…47

Comments

  • #782
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    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.

    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.


  • #783
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    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.

    Right. Ok accepting that, how is a psychiatrist going to determine whether the suicidal impulses are caused by not wanting to continue a pregnancy or down to prenatal depression/psychosis. I think this compromises those professionals who are supposed to be scientists and who treat mental health.

    It doesn't really make any sense. And then what happens. They have a record of being suicidal, have an abortion, and do they continue then with psychiatric treatment?

    If you are going to be pro choice, then be pro choice and insure the choice is rational. Suicide is considered a symptom of mental illness and not rational.

    The suicide clause looks very very flawed. It just doesn't make any sense.


  • #784
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    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.

    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.


  • #785
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    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.

    you cant cure suicide cos your dead!


  • #786
    YumCha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 519 ✭✭✭YumCha


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    The suicide clause looks very very flawed. It just doesn't make any sense.

    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...


  • Advertisement
  • #787
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    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...

    And people accepted this? Is this what has been voted in?


  • #788
    YumCha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 519 ✭✭✭YumCha


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    And people accepted this? Is this what has been voted in?

    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


  • #789
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    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

    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?


  • #790
    YumCha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 519 ✭✭✭YumCha


    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?

    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.


  • #791
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    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.

    Which places an indirect limit of 23 weeks on it as a baby survived in Holles St last year when born at that gestation...


  • Advertisement
  • #792
    clairefontaine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,390 ✭✭✭clairefontaine


    So if you are suicidal and the baby can't live without you than you can have an abortion. But once the baby can be supported by hospital care than you cannot have an abortion, even if you are suicidal?

    So.... If you are that far along and suicidal then what happens? Do they c section you, keep the baby in the hospital and then treat you for a mental disorder?

    Or do they just force you to get psych care?

    If the psychs are agreeing to this, then I'm really not sure who should be treated for being crazy.


  • #793
    cdaly_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭cdaly_


    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?
    As I understand it, an individual doctor may opt out but the institution may not. Somebody will be required to do it.
    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...
    I'm still hoping this is the first step in that direction.


  • #794
    Morag
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    And people accepted this? Is this what has been voted in?

    That is what is in the legislation which had been finalized and will be voted into law by the end of July.


  • #795
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    I don't know what you find so hard to understand about it Claire. I don't know much about suicide but I do know that pressure makes people feel they are backed into a corner and that's when ideas about ending it all can come to the fore. We accept that people take their own lives when they are under financial pressure, being bullied, after relationships end, when they suffer a huge trauma....why belittle the impact of a crisis pregnancy?


  • #796
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    clairefontaine wrote: »
    I'm really not sure who should be treated for being crazy.

    I don't think phrases like 'being crazy' help one iota with the debate on mental health.

    Why distinguish between a threat to life for physical or mental reasons? The nub of the X case is a threat to the life of a pregnant child due to suicide, to legislate and explicitly leave out that provision makes no sense.


  • #797
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,876 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    And of course if a pregnant woman commits suicide, then the fetus dies anyway.


  • #798
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    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.

    I'm trying to explain why the "abortion is not a cure" argument is bull, it's incredibly difficult to articulate, or at least I find so, as, evidently, do most of those in favour as I've never heard it articulated well... Do you have any response to the content of the post or are you going to stick with ignoring that in favour of critiquing the fact I used my personal experience as a vehicle to get a point across (seriously, I think I made that point about 5 times in there, it's obviously not just random storytime.)

    The only irrationality I can see is in the arguments you have put forward, a suicide clause for euthenaisa? I should hope so!


  • #799
    kat.mac
    Closed Accounts Posts: 390 ✭✭kat.mac


    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.

    Ah here, that's fairly harsh. All perspectives should be welcome, and I for one think the perspective of someone who's been through mental health difficulties is more than valuable. And I'm not sure how you can decide what someone else should or should not be offended by?!

    I'm not in full agreement with the new legislation - but there's nothing irrational about it. The Supreme Court, in the X case, laid out the law as contained in the Constitution. Twice, the voting population voted to uphold the Supreme Court's ruling that the risk of suicide is included in the wider risk of death. The Government are now putting all of that into black-and-white legislation. Very logical and straightforward.

    Your mention of euthanasia is the very definition of a straw man. The Government didn't just pluck the suicide risk clause out of the air, it comes from the SC ruling in the X case.


  • #800
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    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?

    Would ideation be deemed a real, substantial and probable risk of death?? I dont know. just asking the question.


  • #801
    Bluegrass1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 97 ✭✭Bluegrass1


    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?

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #802
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    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.

    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.


  • #803
    MaxWig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭MaxWig


    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.

    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.


  • #804
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    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.

    Do you really think women would bother? We've had abortion in Ireland for decades only its just over the water in the UK so there is no reason to think women wouldn't just continue to take that option. Its a lot easier to do that than have to sit in front of a panel and a lot quicker too - women generally don't want to have to wait around if they can avoid it.

    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?


  • #805
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    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.
    It confuses me as to why the suggestion that women lie, and will lie, to gain access to medical treatment is proposed as a reason to deny all women access to medical treatment when there is a risk to their lives.

    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?


  • #806
    MaxWig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭MaxWig


    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?

    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


  • #807
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    MaxWig wrote: »
    I say that with respect

    I don't think you do.


  • #808
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    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.

    Have you not realised yet that we are not allowed to implement safeguards against system abuse, lest we criminalise or insult women??

    I take offence at having to show ID and bank statements when applying for credit - honestly do they think I am a thief?? My word that I will repay the money should be enough.

    It seems that safeguards against system abuse are tolerated in every other single scenario...except abortion. People get super hysterical about it. Rational discussion is....well... who knows - we've never seen it.

    I certainly do not want to see a suicidal women forced to continue with her pregnancy, but there is nothing wrong with implementation of safeguards against abuse. (Having said that I think 6 specialists is a little extreme???)


  • #809
    MaxWig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭MaxWig


    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?

    Suggestion that women lie? Its not a suggestion, its a fact of life.

    No one is suggesting that - the panel is a panel of doctors there to diagnose.

    If I go to the hospital and say I have Parkinsons, and they proceed to test me - are they insinuating that I'm lying?


  • #810
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    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

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #811
    MaxWig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,025 ✭✭✭MaxWig


    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.

    I understand your point, but if we are to accept the situation as it stands, then an assessment of suicidality is essential.

    Not accepting the situation is another story


Advertisement