Abortions for 3,735, minature flags for nobody

eviltwin · 09-06-2015 11:16PM

Mrmoe wrote: »

Do you honestly think a majority of people would be in favour of that though? From any debate I have seen on here I would say the majority would favour abortion before 24 weeks but that would be it.

No, I think most people would support an early cut off like the one you mentioned. I just don't think it's practical for a lot of cases. Things can happen mid pregnancy that might result in the need to end it. Termination of pregnancy isn't always abortion, in a lot of cases it will be induction of labour.

Mrmoe · 09-06-2015 11:45PM

eviltwin wrote: »

No, I think most people would support an early cut off like the one you mentioned. I just don't think it's practical for a lot of cases. Things can happen mid pregnancy that might result in the need to end it. Termination of pregnancy isn't always abortion, in a lot of cases it will be induction of labour.

When this is put before the electorate the exact question will be crucial.You won't have too many people disagreeing with abortion in the case of rape or fatal foetal abnormality but you will have resistance against unrestricted abortion. This will be crucial in any debate. Is elective induction pre 38 weeks even allowed/practiced in this country?

_Whimsical_ · 10-06-2015 12:01AM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You do realise that survey was sent to 305 psychiatrists (of 350 in this country), and only 127 of them actually responded? It sounds suspiciously like convenience sampling to me.

I do realise that but no one claimed they didn't get a survey or that they felt the results were misrepresented. No professional body disowned the results.

305 were sent out ,127 responded. That's almost 42%. I'm sure that no optional survey receives 100% of responses, 40% is average according online stats on the subject (I don't claim to have done a theisis on that now,I'm judging from several google hits). There's no evidence or vague credible reason to suspect there was an ideological reason that the other 60% failed to respond or that if they had, that the vast majority would have answered the questions put to them in a different manner.

whatdoicare · 10-06-2015 12:39AM

TBH If even one anti - choice person went on a forum for women who have suffered birth trauma - I'm talking about women who wanted their babies, women who love their babies, who were happy to go through whatever pain went with pregnancy - I'm not even talking about women who didn't want to be pregnant and read what they are mentally and physically going through....

I mean, no-one would ever make light of birth ever again, noone would possibly be capable of forcing someone to unwillingly go through pregnancy and birth!

It's not always just being a bit uncomfortable for 9 months, then a day or hours of pain and a few days of being uncomfortable while healing, alot of people don't seem to realise or maybe idealise what it's really like, it's quite a lot of the time a much longer physical recovery, I'm talking years and an even longer mental recovery than many realise.

There are many women suffering with PTSD and flash backs from their experiences. Some are physically ****ed up for life, suffering incontinence or long term pain. And what's even worse, the medical notes will record it all as business as usual, job well done, baby and mammy alive.

I understand the image of the mammy in her new bathrobe, fresh faced with their little bonny baby all swaddled up in pink or blue is the image we all have of birth but it's most often not like that at all.

I couldn't even begin to imagine what it'd be like to go through labour to birth a dead or about to die baby, I mean, that must be the most horrific thing to ever go through - and yet, I know at least two friends, that were open enough to talk about it, that went through it. One of them had to have major abdominal surgery because of it - ie, a c- section.

It's not as uncommon as you'd think, it's just women don't talk about it, they plaster the smile on and fill facebook with happy dappy pictures and wheel baby off to montessori or toddler massage or whatever.

It's completely taboo to speak about it - like, how does a mother turn around to her baby group and spout - "oh, you know what, I'm in pain every day and I'm too scared to get a smear test as I keep having flash backs of the doctor forcing forceps up my vagina while I was terrified I was going to die and I lost a lot of blood and I have nightmares about that midwife who was screaming at me to push and when he did the episiotomy he cut too far and I can't even work up the courage to look down there but it feels like a mess, pooing really hurts now and I dream every night that my baby has died in her sleep and I'm now too scared to sleep in case it really happens and I also really think that if I died tomorrow it would actually be a relief but I'd be leaving my baby behind and who would watch her to make sure she didn't die in her sleep and I really love my husband but I'm pretty sure he's going to leave me because I can't orgasm anymore, so sex is pretty ****, this is what a prostitute must feel like and I'm never in the mood anyway and to be quite honest I actually really resent the fact he's not in any pain and he's whinging about having to change a nappy and I'd happily stab him to death right now if I thought I could get away with it and jesus, I never checked if this cafe has a toilet and what if my ****ing huge pad leaks through and I wreck a chair - again - and everyone I meet is asking me if I'm trying for baby number two and I wish I could tell them to **** off!!"

Guess what, I had a "normal" birth but that rant above is a regular thought pattern that goes through my head on a daily basis and every other mammy in the world. My baby is two now. My husband would **** his pants if he knew what goes through my head every waking moment.

Could anyone really force a woman to go through all that if they didn't want to? Birthing a baby doesn't switch on some kind of "mothering love" button nor does giving up the baby for adoption take away all the trauma. Nothing goes back to normal afterwards! NOTHING! It's nowhere near as simple as people think it is. Women should only go through birth when they are 100% on board with it all and I mean that. It's just too ****ing hard otherwise.

dashcamdanny · 10-06-2015 02:34AM

whatdoicare wrote: »

TBH If even one anti - choice person went on a forum for women who have suffered birth trauma - I'm talking about women who wanted their babies, women who love their babies, who were happy to go through whatever pain went with pregnancy - I'm not even talking about women who didn't want to be pregnant and read what they are mentally and physically going through....

I mean, no-one would ever make light of birth ever again, noone would possibly be capable of forcing someone to unwillingly go through pregnancy and birth!

It's not always just being a bit uncomfortable for 9 months, then a day or hours of pain and a few days of being uncomfortable while healing, alot of people don't seem to realise or maybe idealise what it's really like, it's quite a lot of the time a much longer physical recovery, I'm talking years and an even longer mental recovery than many realise.

There are many women suffering with PTSD and flash backs from their experiences. Some are physically ****ed up for life, suffering incontinence or long term pain. And what's even worse, the medical notes will record it all as business as usual, job well done, baby and mammy alive.

I understand the image of the mammy in her new bathrobe, fresh faced with their little bonny baby all swaddled up in pink or blue is the image we all have of birth but it's most often not like that at all.

I couldn't even begin to imagine what it'd be like to go through labour to birth a dead or about to die baby, I mean, that must be the most horrific thing to ever go through - and yet, I know at least two friends, that were open enough to talk about it, that went through it. One of them had to have major abdominal surgery because of it - ie, a c- section.

It's not as uncommon as you'd think, it's just women don't talk about it, they plaster the smile on and fill facebook with happy dappy pictures and wheel baby off to montessori or toddler massage or whatever.

It's completely taboo to speak about it - like, how does a mother turn around to her baby group and spout - "oh, you know what, I'm in pain every day and I'm too scared to get a smear test as I keep having flash backs of the doctor forcing forceps up my vagina while I was terrified I was going to die and I lost a lot of blood and I have nightmares about that midwife who was screaming at me to push and when he did the episiotomy he cut too far and I can't even work up the courage to look down there but it feels like a mess, pooing really hurts now and I dream every night that my baby has died in her sleep and I'm now too scared to sleep in case it really happens and I also really think that if I died tomorrow it would actually be a relief but I'd be leaving my baby behind and who would watch her to make sure she didn't die in her sleep and I really love my husband but I'm pretty sure he's going to leave me because I can't orgasm anymore, so sex is pretty ****, this is what a prostitute must feel like and I'm never in the mood anyway and to be quite honest I actually really resent the fact he's not in any pain and he's whinging about having to change a nappy and I'd happily stab him to death right now if I thought I could get away with it and jesus, I never checked if this cafe has a toilet and what if my ****ing huge pad leaks through and I wreck a chair - again - and everyone I meet is asking me if I'm trying for baby number two and I wish I could tell them to **** off!!"

Guess what, I had a "normal" birth but that rant above is a regular thought pattern that goes through my head on a daily basis and every other mammy in the world. My baby is two now. My husband would **** his pants if he knew what goes through my head every waking moment.

Could anyone really force a woman to go through all that if they didn't want to? Birthing a baby doesn't switch on some kind of "mothering love" button nor does giving up the baby for adoption take away all the trauma. Nothing goes back to normal afterwards! NOTHING! It's nowhere near as simple as people think it is. Women should only go through birth when they are 100% on board with it all and I mean that. It's just too ****ing hard otherwise.

You make childbirth sound like a complete horror story.

Its not . I seen my 2 children brought into the world , it was tough . One need sectioned after a 24 hours of labour.

But guess what. My wife was grand after. None of these night terrors and flashback you speak of.

whatdoicare · 10-06-2015 05:50AM

dashcamdanny wrote: »

You make childbirth sound like a complete horror story.

Its not . I seen my 2 children brought into the world , it was tough . One need sectioned after a 24 hours of labour.

But guess what. My wife was grand after. None of these night terrors and flashback you speak of.

Really, so because your wife is okay (and btw if you asked my husband hed probably swear blind the same as you, and to be even more honest, if he turned to me and asked Id swear blind that Im perfect and laugh it off) then that must mean that all women came through it okay? Did I not say in the first line to read from a birth trauma forum and did I also not say hundreds maybe thousands not 100% of women? I did mention that the running commentary I wrote is what goes on in all mammies and it does. Not word for word obviously but something similar. My main point being that its not an easy thing and unless you are 100% on board with it you shouldn't be forced to go through with it because it can go wrong and it does for a lot of women!

volchitsa · 10-06-2015 07:54AM

dashcamdanny wrote: »

You make childbirth sound like a complete horror story.

Its not . I seen my 2 children brought into the world , it was tough . One need sectioned after a 24 hours of labour.

But guess what. My wife was grand after. None of these night terrors and flashback you speak of.

Oh well that's grand then, that other poster must just be being stupid. :mad:

I can hardly believe such an honest and quite disturbing (and very believable, speaking as a woman who's given birth more than once) account got a trite, pathetic response like this.

And IME, FWIW, childbirth is pretty brutal. I had a difficult second birth which left me with minor (very minor but definitely real) trauma, so I can completely understand what the poster was describing. The aftermath can also be painful and nasty.

It doesn't matter that most women do get over it, often fairly quickly : for a man to dismiss one woman's account on the basis that he's seen his wife give birth is just jaw-dropping in its ignorance and lack of sensitivity. I wonder would someone that insensitive even notice if things weren't alright?

The Corinthian · 10-06-2015 08:13AM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Which one? The life support or the kidnapping and forced donation? Which one do you think is analogous to pregnancy?

I was clearly responding to the forced donation analogy. Why is it ridiculous?

In both scenarios we have a situation whereby unless the bodily rights of an individual are overridden, in both cases with health consequences, another will die. Yet one case it is acceptable to do so and the other it is not.

You might argue that one involves the death of the second individual through passive means (inaction by not donating) and the other through active (action by termination). Yet morally, and this is a moral question, we see no difference between the two - omission, or failure to act, is still seen as an actus reus, even in law.

So on this basis, you need to explain how you were able to dismiss as ridiculous the analogy.

Lagraso · 10-06-2015 08:24AM

eviltwin wrote: »

At 38 weeks you would end the pregnancy by induction. It's not abortion. Let's try and keep the debate logical, how many women do you think will wait until week 38?

You're completely missing the point, the point is to test the logical consistency of the poster's argument.

Lagraso · 10-06-2015 08:27AM

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I do realise that but no one claimed they didn't get a survey or that they felt the results were misrepresented. No professional body disowned the results.

305 were sent out ,127 responded. That's almost 42%. I'm sure that no optional survey receives 100% of responses, 40% is average according online stats on the subject (I don't claim to have done a theisis on that now,I'm judging from several google hits). There's no evidence or vague credible reason to suspect there was an ideological reason that the other 60% failed to respond or that if they had, that the vast majority would have answered the questions put to them in a different manner.

Bang on the money, Popepalptine is clutching at straws.

Little CuChulainn · 10-06-2015 08:32AM

whatdoicare wrote: »

Really, so because your wife is okay (and btw if you asked my husband hed probably swear blind the same as you, and to be even more honest, if he turned to me and asked Id swear blind that Im perfect and laugh it off) then that must mean that all women came through it okay? Did I not say in the first line to read from a birth trauma forum and did I also not say hundreds maybe thousands not 100% of women? I did mention that the running commentary I wrote is what goes on in all mammies and it does. Not word for word obviously but something similar. My main point being that its not an easy thing and unless you are 100% on board with it you shouldn't be forced to go through with it because it can go wrong and it does for a lot of women!

You dismiss a poster for generalising based on his experience yet insist your "running commentary" is accurate for all women.

PopePalpatine · 10-06-2015 08:37AM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You dismiss a poster for generalising based on his experience yet insist your "running commentary" is accurate for all women.

Yay, more cherry-picking! God forbid you actually consider her post about the effects pregnancy had on her.

Little CuChulainn · 10-06-2015 08:39AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I was clearly responding to the forced donation analogy. Why is it ridiculous?

In both scenarios we have a situation whereby unless the bodily rights of an individual are overridden, in both cases with health consequences, another will die. Yet one case it is acceptable to do so and the other it is not.

You might argue that one involves the death of the second individual through passive means (inaction by not donating) and the other through active (action by termination). Yet morally, and this is a moral question, we see no difference between the two - omission, or failure to act, is still seen as an actus reus, even in law.

So on this basis, you need to explain how you were able to dismiss as ridiculous the analogy.

Omission is only an actus reus if the specific law provides for it or in a case for negligence where there was a legal responsibility on the person. This does not apply to anything like organ donation.

The main reason I see forced organ donation as uncomparable to pregnancy is because there are two completely different relationships in question. I'm not sure how you can logically claim that a womans relationship to a stranger needing donation is similar to a relationship with a fetus. For one thing, the fetus merely rents while a donor takes. Secondly, a relationship with a fetus is symbiotic as opposed to parasitic. It makes demands but it gives benefits too.

volchitsa · 10-06-2015 08:42AM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You dismiss a poster for generalising based on his experience yet insist your "running commentary" is accurate for all women.

That other poster's experience of childbirth is zero. You don't think that's a far bigger issue than what this poster said?

God knows, I'm all for everyone having a vote and so on, but here we have male posters telling female ones they're wrong about their experience of childbirth, which is crazy.

And you have nothing to say about that, but instead pick on one slightly ambiguous sentence by the poster who was describing her experience. I think your own lack of objectivity is evident there!

Little CuChulainn · 10-06-2015 08:44AM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yay, more cherry-picking! God forbid you actually consider her post about the effects pregnancy had on her.

I didn't see the point of it. It's just a person freaking out over horror stories they read on the internet and saying that all women feel like her. I'd imagine counselling would be a good thing for her to try. As arguments for abortion go, fear it might be a bad pregnancy is hardly convincing.

volchitsa · 10-06-2015 08:48AM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Omission is only an actus reus if the specific law provides for it or in a case for negligence where there was a legal responsibility on the person. This does not apply to anything like organ donation.

The main reason I see forced organ donation as uncomparable to pregnancy is because there are two completely different relationships in question. I'm not sure how you can logically claim that a womans relationship to a stranger needing donation is similar to a relationship with a fetus. For one thing, the fetus merely rents while a donor takes. Secondly, a relationship with a fetus is symbiotic as opposed to parasitic. It makes demands but it gives benefits too.

You've just demolished your own "symbiotic" argument : you can't refuse the validity of analogy with parasite because the relationship is different while putting forward your own version of it.

Anyway, I don't think symbiosis is a good description at all : what benefits does the woman's body get from the fetus that aren't in reality the fetus' interests? The overall balance of benefits is surely nowhere near equal, which imuic is required to move from parasitic to symbiotic, or at least there must be one major plus for the host body. Is there?

volchitsa · 10-06-2015 08:53AM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I didn't see the point of it. It's just a person freaking out over horror stories they read on the internet and saying that all women feel like her. I'd imagine counselling would be a good thing for her to try.

So you're accusing her of lying?

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

As arguments for abortion go, fear it might be a bad pregnancy is hardly convincing.

You're misrepresenting what she said. I presume that's deliberate.

Qualitymark · 10-06-2015 08:55AM

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

If someone wants to leave the country to have an abortion in a country where it's legal you can't stop them. It doesn't mean making abortion legal here would be right.

Britain is making noises about stopping abortions for Irish people. Let's see what happens then.

(Oh, and an interesting article on pregnancy as war between host and implant http://aeon.co/magazine/science/pregnancy-is-a-battleground-between-mother-father-and-baby/

)

Little CuChulainn · 10-06-2015 08:57AM

volchitsa wrote: »

You've just demolished your own "symbiotic" argument : you can't refuse the validity of analogy with parasite because the relationship is different while putting forward your own version of it.

Anyway, I don't think symbiosis is a good description at all : what benefits does the woman's body get from the fetus that aren't in reality the fetus' interests? The overall balance of benefits is surely nowhere near equal, which imuic is required to move from parasitic to symbiotic, or at least there must be one major plus for the host body. Is there?

There are a number of health benefits, both temporary and permanent, from being pregnant. Just Google it and you'll get a flood of info. I know it from experience too that it can have massive long term benefits for some conditions.

Little CuChulainn · 10-06-2015 09:00AM

volchitsa wrote: »

So you're accusing her of lying?

No. She said she had a normal birth.

volchitsa wrote: »

You're misrepresenting what she said. I presume that's deliberate.

No. Seems to be the argument. It might be a bad pregnancy so you should be allowed stop it at the start if you are afraid it will be.

volchitsa · 10-06-2015 09:06AM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

No. She said she had a normal birth.

No. Seems to be the argument. It might be a bad pregnancy so you should be allowed stop it at the start if you are afraid it will be.

1) normal births can cause trauma, which is what she was saying about herself. And then extrapolating to women who've had life-threatening experiences duri g the birth. Which is fair enough, unless you think nothing ever goes wrong during births for anyone?

2) no it isn't the argument, try reading the end again.

The Corinthian · 10-06-2015 09:09AM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Omission is only an actus reus if the specific law provides for it or in a case for negligence where there was a legal responsibility on the person. This does not apply to anything like organ donation.

Actually failure to rescue does not require negligence, only failure to act where one could do so. Morally, this is how we view things and in some jurisdictions (e.g. France) it's backed up by law. So the action-inaction argument unfortunately fails to hold up to scrutiny.

The main reason I see forced organ donation as uncomparable to pregnancy is because there are two completely different relationships in question. I'm not sure how you can logically claim that a womans relationship to a stranger needing donation is similar to a relationship with a fetus.

How is a fetus any less of a stranger? Indeed, it makes no difference if it is a stranger or not, unless you want to suggest that one cannot refuse to donate to a close relative, but can to a stranger.

For one thing, the fetus merely rents while a donor takes.

Renting is actually taking, you do know that? If it were not, there would no payment for it. There are also implications in terms of damage when you rent something out, be it a flat or, as you are implying, a uterus. So to suggest there is no 'cost' to the renter, would be false.

Secondly, a relationship with a fetus is symbiotic as opposed to parasitic. It makes demands but it gives benefits too.

I think you're stretching the definition of symbiotic a tad there. Even if it were, this does not rationalize overriding bodily rights in one case and not in another - or are you suggesting that if you pay for the organ you can take it without their consent, as that too is a symbiotic relationship, by your definition.

volchitsa · 10-06-2015 09:12AM

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

There are a number of health benefits, both temporary and permanent, from being pregnant. Just Google it and you'll get a flood of info. I know it from experience too that it can have massive long term benefits for some conditions.

Curing some long term conditions isn't enough to make something symbiotic, because most women don't have those conditions.

And no, I'm not going to flipping google it, you made the claim, back it up with sources or admit you're just chancing your arm. Pregnancy isn't a symbiotic relationship. It's pretty solidly all one way. Which is grand when you want to be pregnant and don't have a serious complication.

But at a guess I'd say that symbiosis isn't a suitable definition for any relationship that can potentially cause the death of the host. Is it? (Again, you made the claim, you can do the googling to back it up)

gandalf · 10-06-2015 09:33AM

As a happily married father of a five year old boy I find the very existence of abortion abhorrent. Looking at it in isolation I can guarantee that no one would say they are in favour of the practice.

However having seen what my wife went through when she was pregnant there is no way any woman should be forced to carry a child she does not want. We wanted this child and planned everything out. The birth didn't go the way we planned and my son had to be delivered by emergency caesarian section which resulted in a lot of recovery and pain for my wife.

There is no way a woman should have to go through this if the child isn't planned. There is no way a woman should be forced to carry a child to term who won't survive after they are born. There is no way a woman should be forced to carry a child who has been conceived because of a rape. Basically a woman should have the right to choose what happens to her own body. If she is against abortion then she has the choice to carry the child to term.

I know an awful lot of people who are involved in the Anti-Choice organisations through family members. These people spout on about protecting the unborn but would walk by a starving child in the streets. They care more about imaginary kids than real ones. They also tend to rant on about how single mothers are ruining society. They are hypocrites of the highest order.

At the end of the day we are sending approx 4000 women a year that we know of out of this country to get a medical procedure done who shouldn't have to travel. I doubt that in the next year we will have 4000 same sex marriages yet we voted yes for that. We are viewed as a child of a nation because of this, it is time we grew up and took responsibility for our own citizens and didn't rely on other states to do the jobs that we find unpalatable. Do I believe that providing woman a choice will result in an avalanche of abortions, no I don't. If anything having a more open and honest attitude and discussion here in Ireland could conceivable result in a reduction of them.

I am firmly in the pro-choice camp, I am anti-abortion but I am mature enough to realise that life is not black and white but grey so individuals should have a choice about what happens to their bodies and what path their life will take. As a man I really should not have the ability to dictate to a woman on what happens with her body. If men could become pregnant and carry children then I can guarantee that we would not be having this conversation. The eighth would already be repealed.

With the SSM vote recently we have taken one step out of the 1950's dogma that has blighted this country with the repel of the eighth we will be finally able to step into the 21st century as a mature nation that treats all its citizens equally.

10-06-2015 09:47AM

Think people are getting ahead of themselves with the SSM referendum thinking one on abortion on demand would pass easily. Thankfully there is a lot of people in Ireland who value life and I don't see any chance at all that abortion will be voted in.

We already have laws to to allow it in certain circumstances when it really is needed, I'd like to think we will continue for many many years not allowing babies to be killed as a form of contraception like in the UK.

seamus · 10-06-2015 09:50AM

Thankfully nobody is proposing a referendum about "abortion on demand", either now or at any point in the future.

10-06-2015 09:51AM

seamus wrote: »

Thankfully nobody is proposing a referendum about "abortion on demand", either now or at any point in the future.

Its exactly what people are proposing.

K-9 · 10-06-2015 09:58AM

Completely with gandalf on this, personally I don't like the whole concept of abortion and I hope it isn't something that becomes a personal issue in my life.

I did ask the question earlier, what exactly is the ban achieving? I don't think anybody gave any good reason.

As somebody said on another part of the site a few years back, abortion should ideally be in as few cases as possible, and in that event should be safe, accessible and have the required ante and post abortion care. I find it very hard to argue with that.

I think the next step is to legalise it here. The stats show most European countries reduce the abortion rate over time and that's what the aim should be.

Thankfully figures are on the decrease overall, a small increase this year, teenage pregnancies are also significantly down from 10 years ago so it seems we are finally maturing as a country when it comes to this stuff.

K-9 · 10-06-2015 10:00AM

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

Its exactly what people are proposing.

You mean some people.

Politically its a non runner while FG or FF are the main parties in Government.

seamus · 10-06-2015 10:12AM

Yadiel Nutritious Apartment wrote: »

Its exactly what people are proposing.

Nope. The only amendment being proposed is a repeal of the 8th amendment, which is a far cry from a referendum on "abortions on demand".

Of course, don't let the facts get in the way of your hysterical nonsense.

Abortions for 3,735, minature flags for nobody

Comments