Woman forced to travel to England for abortion calls for law change

indy_man · 27-07-2014 12:51PM

Later on in this video is more information on problems with abortions in UK.

PopePalpatine · 27-07-2014 01:15PM

indy_man wrote: »

Later on in this video is more information on problems with abortions in UK.

"Information"? You missed the "mis" at the start.

This thread was terminated long ago, so back to Alive! HQ with you.

catallus · 27-07-2014 01:24PM

I forgot to thank you for recommending that site to me

indy_man · 27-07-2014 02:16PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

"Information"? You missed the "mis" at the start.

This thread was terminated long ago, so back to Alive! HQ with you.

What misinformation are you referring to in?

PopePalpatine · 27-07-2014 02:19PM

indy_man wrote: »

What misinformation are you referring to in?

That video.

Time and time again, it's reactionaries like you who are devoid of empathy for women who've had abortions, regardless of the reason.

indy_man · 27-07-2014 02:25PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

That video.

Time and time again, it's reactionaries like you who are devoid of empathy for women who've had abortions, regardless of the reason.

Sorry Pope but your last statement is complete nonsense. Part of the goal of that video is to prevent abortions in order to save women from this distress and it refers to the plight of one woman who has suffered.

Don't try and push your abortion agenda and claim you have empathy for women.

Midnight Sundance · 27-07-2014 02:27PM

If you've ever watched Private Practice, one of the characters had a baby with this defect. It was a very sad storyline.

I feel very sorry for the lady is this headline, no outcome would have been a good outcome for her.travelling to london added to the already huge trauma she would have been suffering.
I really wish doctors would sometimes just stop and think about what they would do in a situation like this and see if they would have made the same decision.
Poor lady, heart goes out to her. She has lost a baby and must be in bits!

eviltwin · 27-07-2014 02:27PM

indy_man wrote: »

Sorry Pope but your last statement is complete nonsense. Part of the goal of that video is to prevent abortions in order to save women from this distress and it refers to the plight of one woman who has suffered.

Don't try and push your abortion agenda and claim you have empathy for women.

That bit in bold being the relevant bit here.

PopePalpatine · 27-07-2014 02:29PM

indy_man wrote: »

Sorry Pope but your last statement is complete nonsense. Part of the goal of that video is to prevent abortions in order to save women from this distress and it refers to the plight of one woman who has suffered.

Don't try and push your abortion agenda and claim you have empathy for women.

How will it "prevent abortions"? By slut-shaming?

If you want to "prevent abortions", prevent unwanted pregnancies arising in the first place.

shruikan2553 · 27-07-2014 02:40PM

indy_man wrote: »

Sorry Pope but your last statement is complete nonsense. Part of the goal of that video is to prevent abortions in order to save women from this distress and it refers to the plight of one woman who has suffered.

Don't try and push your abortion agenda and claim you have empathy for women.

Maybe it should talk about that instead of bitching about RTE. RTE is ****, welcome to the world.

P_1 · 27-07-2014 03:11PM

That video looks suspiciously like an Iona creation...

LETHAL LADY · 27-07-2014 04:14PM

Christ on a bike that is one ****ing dumbass video. Is it anti RTE or abortion?
I stand to be corrected but wasn't one of the main issues with the legislation being that it didn't cover fatal foetal abnormalities, not that the vast majority of people were anti-abortion.
Also, the tragic story of the Irish based woman bleeding to death in a taxi surely reinforces the need to have access here for women who choose to have abortions, rather than making them travel and then having to rush to catch a flight or ferry home after the procedure, which in turn may lead to them missing out on vital aftercare.

UCDVet · 27-07-2014 04:15PM

Without expressing an opinion on abortion either way - I feel like the title of this thread is incorrect and intentionally inflammatory.

She wasn't *forced* to travel to England.

She voluntarily went to England for something that she couldn't legally find in Ireland. She would prefer if that something where legal in Ireland. Some people will agree, some people will disagree....but she was not forced to travel to England.

Muise... · 27-07-2014 04:31PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Without expressing an opinion on abortion either way - I feel like the title of this thread is incorrect and intentionally inflammatory.

She wasn't *forced* to travel to England.

She voluntarily went to England for something that she couldn't legally find in Ireland. She would prefer if that something where legal in Ireland. Some people will agree, some people will disagree....but she was not forced to travel to England.

Thanks Dr Semantics. While you're correct in saying that the obligation to continue an unviable pregnancy - visibly, with everyone making nice chit-chat about it, knowing that you're going to deliver a dead baby whose poor deformed body will give you nightmares - isn't exactly a gun to one's head, your innocuous terms 'voluntarily' and 'prefer' don't cover it either.

27-07-2014 04:40PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Without expressing an opinion on abortion either way - I feel like the title of this thread is incorrect and intentionally inflammatory.

She wasn't *forced* to travel to England.

She voluntarily went to England for something that she couldn't legally find in Ireland. She would prefer if that something where legal in Ireland. Some people will agree, some people will disagree....but she was not forced to travel to England.

Some major underplaying of a huge human tragedy there.

She is in the middle of an agonising situation that medical staff here are more than able (and I'd guess mostly willing) to alleviate, but instead she has to leave her home and surroundings to get treatment elsewhere, removed from all her usual supports.

Some choice.

UCDVet · 27-07-2014 05:24PM

Muise... wrote: »

Thanks Dr Semantics. While you're correct in saying that the obligation to continue an unviable pregnancy - visibly, with everyone making nice chit-chat about it, knowing that you're going to deliver a dead baby whose poor deformed body will give you nightmares - isn't exactly a gun to one's head, your innocuous terms 'voluntarily' and 'prefer' don't cover it either.

I think it's best to be as fair and objective as possible. Saying she was 'forced' helps frame the tone of the discussion that will follow.

As I understand it, the law in Northern Ireland won't allow an abortion unless there is a physical risk to the Mother. And the laws around it haven't changed in a very long time. Lots of reasonable people support the law as it is.

But saying:

'Doctor's forced to follow law that was legally passed and many support, even though the situation is atypical and lots of people think it's inappropriate in this particular case....leaving a woman with the options of either continuing to carrying her baby until it dies, is born, presents a health risk, or to pursue options outside Northern Ireland'

Doesn't have the same ring.

And what qualifies as a 'serious defect' for abortions in the UK are pretty ambiguous. A lot of people disagree with it, some groups push to get certain conditions (like Cleft lip) pulled from the list of qualifying defects.

All I'm saying is it's unfair to use this example, in isolation, and paint everyone involved as monsters that forced some poor girl to leave the country.

Nodin · 27-07-2014 05:30PM

UCDVet wrote: »

I think it's best to be as fair and objective as possible. Saying she was 'forced' helps frame the tone of the discussion that will follow.

As I understand it, the law in Northern Ireland won't allow an abortion unless there is a physical risk to the Mother. And the laws around it haven't changed in a very long time. Lots of reasonable people support the law as it is.

.

Lots of reasonable people support a law that forces a woman to either give birth to a child that has no hope of surivival - that is braindead - or travel abroad?

Grayson · 27-07-2014 05:36PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Lots of reasonable people support the law as it is.

they're not reasonable.

In this case a woman with a foetus, that had no skull, was brain dead and would never be born alive, was told that she would have to wait till it died and then she would be forced into labour to give birth to a dead malformed foetus.

Reasonable people everywhere support that. :rolleyes:

It's possible to have a logical reasonable discussion about abortion, but when people are against this, it's not reasonable or logical. It's based in stupid idealism.

Muise... · 27-07-2014 05:37PM

UCDVet wrote: »

I think it's best to be as fair and objective as possible. Saying she was 'forced' helps frame the tone of the discussion that will follow.

As I understand it, the law in Northern Ireland won't allow an abortion unless there is a physical risk to the Mother. And the laws around it haven't changed in a very long time. Lots of reasonable people support the law as it is.

But saying:

'Doctor's forced to follow law that was legally passed and many support, even though the situation is atypical and lots of people think it's inappropriate in this particular case....leaving a woman with the options of either continuing to carrying her baby until it dies, is born, presents a health risk, or to pursue options outside Northern Ireland'

Doesn't have the same ring.

And what qualifies as a 'serious defect' for abortions in the UK are pretty ambiguous. A lot of people disagree with it, some groups push to get certain conditions (like Cleft lip) pulled from the list of qualifying defects.

All I'm saying is it's unfair to use this example, in isolation, and paint everyone involved as monsters that forced some poor girl to leave the country.

Is it really just the term "forced" you have a problem with here?

I don't see how we can discuss this "example" - a person with a traumatic medical problem, who won't have the healthy baby she hoped for - without painting as monsters the people who actively block changes to the law (in NI) that would allow her and others carrying unviable foetuses some dignity and relief from her suffering. Cleft lips have nothing to do with this case.

Grayson · 27-07-2014 05:37PM

let's not forget the gem that groups like youth defense always spout. there is never a medical need for a termination.

Canard · 27-07-2014 05:40PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Saying she was 'forced' helps frame the tone of the discussion that will follow.

UCDVet wrote: »

the options of either continuing to carrying her baby until it dies, is born, presents a health risk, or to pursue options outside Northern Ireland'

Wow, spoiled for choice. Just how does one make up one's mind?

You forgot to mention that the baby wasn't going to "be born" - it was going to be stillborn. But, as you like to say, that doesn't have the same ring to it.

And why would anyone do something "until it causes a health risk" when it most likely is going to cause one? What about mental health risks?

Grayson · 27-07-2014 05:42PM

indy_man wrote: »

Sorry Pope but your last statement is complete nonsense. Part of the goal of that video is to prevent abortions in order to save women from this distress and it refers to the plight of one woman who has suffered.

Don't try and push your abortion agenda and claim you have empathy for women.

Anyone who is truly empathic wants the option.
I have no doubt that there are occasions where a termination is very bad for the mental health of a woman. but I also have absolutely no doubt that there are times it's the absolute best for the woman.

Stating that a woman should always or never have an abortion is stupid. Personally, I'd think that the best people to make the decision about wether it's good or bad for the woman would be the woman herself and a mental health professional.

UCDVet · 27-07-2014 05:44PM

Nodin wrote: »

Lots of reasonable people support a law that forces a woman to either give birth to a child that has no hope of surivival - that is braindead - or travel abroad?

Yes, a lot of reasonable people do. In fact, this woman even admits she supported the law.

The law doesn't say, 'Women shall be forced to give birth to braindead babies'. You are right, nobody would support that.

The law is written to apply to everyone. People are really bad considering all possible options. 'Unintended consequences' and all. It's very hard, near impossible, to come up with a law that doesn't seem inappropriate when applied in some specific situation.

Nodin · 27-07-2014 05:47PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Yes, a lot of reasonable people do. In fact, this woman even admits she supported the law.

The law doesn't say, 'Women shall be forced to give birth to braindead babies'. You are right, nobody would support that.

The law is written to apply to everyone. People are really bad considering all possible options. 'Unintended consequences' and all. It's very hard, near impossible, to come up with a law that doesn't seem inappropriate when applied in some specific situation.

I can't see "fatal foetal abnormality" causing any reasonable member of the anti abortion side sleepless nights. Presuming there still are some.

Muise... · 27-07-2014 05:49PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Yes, a lot of reasonable people do. In fact, this woman even admits she supported the law.

The law doesn't say, 'Women shall be forced to give birth to braindead babies'. You are right, nobody would support that.

The law is written to apply to everyone. People are really bad considering all possible options. 'Unintended consequences' and all. It's very hard, near impossible, to come up with a law that doesn't seem inappropriate when applied in some specific situation.

It's not hard. You discuss it with medical and legal experts and always keep the dignity of women in mind. The hard bit is getting a government here or in NI with the balls to face down the likes of Iona and make these laws properly.

Fr_Dougal · 27-07-2014 05:50PM

indy_man wrote: »

Later on in this video is more information on problems with abortions in UK.

Can I interest you in some miniature American flags?

UCDVet · 27-07-2014 05:55PM

Muise... wrote: »

Is it really just the term "forced" you have a problem with here?

I don't see how we can discuss this "example" - a person with a traumatic medical problem, who won't have the healthy baby she hoped for - without painting as monsters the people who actively block changes to the law (in NI) that would allow her and others carrying unviable foetuses some dignity and relief from her suffering. Cleft lips have nothing to do with this case.

I mostly agree with you.

But Cleft lips have *everything* to do with this case. In London she could get an abortion based on this:

that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped

They don't have firm standards for what any of those words actually mean. Adding that in NI would mean she could get the abortion. But it would also mean that someone could abort in the case of a cleft lip
http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-opinions/briefings-and-qas-/human-fertilisation-and-embryology-bill/abort

There have been calls for cleft lip and/or cleft palate to be excluded from being classified as a ‘serious handicap'

Most people who would try to block a change to the law, are doing it because they fear the change will open the door for people to abort in situations they disagree with. Again, in London, you *could* abort because of a Cleft Lip. A lot of people aren't okay with that (I am, but that is just my opinion). Nearly every single person I know that support abortion wants some limits to when and how it can be done. I rarely hear anyone say, 'Abortions should be legal at any time, for whatever reason' (I would, but again, just my opinion). So it's just a matter of fighting over specific examples and laws that will allow or disallow what you agree/disagree with.

Muise... · 27-07-2014 06:03PM

UCDVet wrote: »

I mostly agree with you.

But Cleft lips have *everything* to do with this case. In London she could get an abortion based on this:

They don't have firm standards for what any of those words actually mean. Adding that in NI would mean she could get the abortion. But it would also mean that someone could abort in the case of a cleft lip
http://www.rcog.org.uk/what-we-do/campaigning-and-opinions/briefings-and-qas-/human-fertilisation-and-embryology-bill/abort

Most people who would try to block a change to the law, are doing it because they fear the change will open the door for people to abort in situations they disagree with. Again, in London, you *could* abort because of a Cleft Lip. A lot of people aren't okay with that (I am, but that is just my opinion). Nearly every single person I know that support abortion wants some limits to when and how it can be done. I rarely hear anyone say, 'Abortions should be legal at any time, for whatever reason' (I am, but again, just my opinion). So it's just a matter of fighting over specific examples and laws that will allow or disallow what you agree/disagree with.

This woman's foetus had no head. I think it's only fair to write laws that help her and not get tangled in hypothetical cases of cleft lips. In the UK, most elective abortions are carried out with the reasoning of protecting the mental health of the mother anyway so whatever is done with the list of abnormalities it could be circumvented if some hypothetical woman was determined to abort a foetus with a cleft lip.

Grayson · 27-07-2014 06:07PM

Muise... wrote: »

This woman's foetus had no head. I think it's only fair to write laws that help her and not get tangled in hypothetical cases of cleft lips. In the UK, most elective abortions are carried out with the reasoning of protecting the mental health of the mother anyway so whatever is done with the list of abnormalities it could be circumvented if some hypothetical woman was determined to abort a foetus with a cleft lip.

But what if one foot was bigger than the other? In outer mongolia she could get an abortion based on this. And that has EVERYTHING to do with this situation.

UCDVet · 27-07-2014 06:14PM

Muise... wrote: »

This woman's foetus had no head. I think it's only fair to write laws that help her and not get tangled in hypothetical cases of cleft lips. In the UK, most elective abortions are carried out with the reasoning of protecting the mental health of the mother anyway so whatever is done with the list of abnormalities it could be circumvented if some hypothetical woman was determined to abort a foetus with a cleft lip.

Not disagreeing with you in the slightest. It's great to write laws that help her. I would support such laws. But it's quite hard to write laws in such a manor that don't have undesired implications. Remember when we screwed up the wording of the LPT laws and had to repay thousands of homeowners? A lot of people are afraid that such a mistake would result in (what they see as) murder of hundreds or thousands of people. I personally might not agree with them, but I can hardly fault them for wanting to prevent that situation.

The laws regarding abortion in the case of deformities that would allow this lady to abort in London, would also allow her to abort in the case of a cleft lip - and a lot of people feel that cleft lips do not justify an abortion. It's a real example of how the same law applies in different situations and different people disagree on whether or not it's good.

All I mean is, I can see how we'd have the system we have now, without malice or evil people who want to make some poor girl suffer and give birth to a child that will not live. I don't think vilifying either side does anyone any good and only leads to more poorly thought out laws pushed by emotional appeals and not sound judgement.

Woman forced to travel to England for abortion calls for law change

Comments