# the case of savita- i am a bit confused



## NOAH (20 Nov 2012)

Am I right that this case only came to light as a result of a tipp off and otherwise would not see the light of day. Am I right in that both wife and husband were fully aware that a termination was vital to save Savita?

And then once hospital knew it was not in their remit to do that not transfer savita to UK?

It just does not make sense.

Can someone explain how the medical profession could just stand there and let a person die?

Its a bit like the war crimes defence, I was only doing what I was told.

As for the enquiry and the make up of its members!!!


----------



## Kerrigan (20 Nov 2012)

The husband has taken the decision to not co-operate with the enquiry.  Who could blame him.


----------



## orka (20 Nov 2012)

In hindsight, an earlier termination of the pregnancy might have saved Savita but I don’t believe it was clear to anyone at the time that her life was at risk – she even had a friend who was a doctor at the hospital who visited her every day – I don’t think anyone stood by as an obviously dying woman slipped away in front of them. The ‘facts’ such as they are reported are:
Sunday 21st October went into hospital with back pain, examined and found to be fully dilated and leaking amniotic fluid – informed that this was incompatible with a continuing pregnancy and that there was no hope of saving the foetus even though the heartbeat was still present.
Monday 22nd: requested a termination as the baby was not going to survive; told no because there was still a heartbeat
Tuesday 23rd AM: in pain, again requested a termination, refused as there was still a heartbeat
Tuesday PM: became very unwell, still in pain 
Wednesday AM: again asked for termination, again told no as there was a heartbeat still present
Wednesday lunchtime: foetal heartbeat stopped, taken immediately to theatre for removal of dead foetus
Wednesday PM: condition worsened - taken to intensive care
Saturday PM: died in intensive care

So, the tragedy is that she was not unwell enough on Monday-Wednesday morning for her life to be considered at risk. The increased risk of infection from a fully dilated cervix and leaking uterus was not sufficient grounds to agree to the request for termination of a still live but doomed foetus. I’m sure the hospital has made the same decision in 100s, probably 1000s of similar circumstances over the years without patients dying so the risk of anything going horribly wrong was very small. In my view, once the foetus is no longer viable, the mother’s life, health and mental being should assume absolute 100% priority.


----------



## NOAH (20 Nov 2012)

thank you orka,  but why could they not move her to UK thats the bit I cant get a handle on, ie galway airport etc.  What stopped them?  the patient was indian not irish, had requested termination could have signed a piece of paper etc.

I must admit I am stunned,  you read of cases where people are flown to UK usa etc for special care but not this one.  And it only became public after a tipp off.

Is ireland also breaking some european law by this trenchant approach.  I would equate to,  if an Irish person was ill in a country that refused a blood transfusion say, we would all be up in arms.

I cant see why everyone is going off  on this road re abortion.


----------



## orka (20 Nov 2012)

NOAH said:


> but why could they not move her to UK thats the bit I cant get a handle on,


But when would anyone have thought they needed to move her?  She didn't appear to be at risk of death on Monday, Tuesday, into Wednesday morning; lots of women go through the same process (wait it out until the heartbeat stops) and they are fine.  So why go to the extreme of travel (and btw, how? no airline would take a miscarrying woman... so air ambulance? who would pay? not a medical emergency)?  By the time her life WAS obviously at risk, the foetus had been removed so no point in going to the UK then.


----------



## NOAH (20 Nov 2012)

Ah it gets clearer.  But I bet if the patient knew the law they would have made arrangements.  It was the 22nd they requested.  And this is the bit that mystifies me.  Why ask for termination twice?  Is it not obvious it would be refused? And the patient must have been aware of the risk, otherwise why keep on asking for a termination?

I dont think they were asking, they were begging.

What ever procedure they were following  in that hospital it was not medical.  In the UK termination would have been granted on the Monday 22nd. 

Thanks for explanation.  What will the enquiry achieve?  And could the patient have been moved to the north ie Derry? by car.

I think it was a case of desperate situations call for desperate measures. 

And I noticed the 3 from Galway have been  removed from the enquiry panel but only after protest.

I think there is more to this than meets the eye.  I saw a bit of frontline last night and one woman wko was on there was interviewed had gone through same process but survived. Was asked should they have terminated?  Answer = yes.


----------



## Leper (20 Nov 2012)

NOAH said:


> Ah it gets clearer. But I bet if the patient knew the law they would have made arrangements. It was the 22nd they requested. And this is the bit that mystifies me. Why ask for termination twice? Is it not obvious it would be refused? And the patient must have been aware of the risk, otherwise why keep on asking for a termination?
> 
> Conjecture?
> 
> ...


 
Please note I put in the above comments into Noah's post because our personal opinions and conjecture matter not to any outcome. I realize my input could have been done better, but my knowledge of PCs is pretty limited. Please note:- No offence meant to Noah. And thanks Orca for the explanation, I was getting a bit confused also.


----------



## WizardDr (20 Nov 2012)

Whilst there is a terrible tragedy  surrounding this, I feel the facts have to be ascertained first.

There are in fact more cases about blood transfusions, children and Jehovah Witnesses and the whole issue of parental consent. Whats interesting is that the cases to date are such that the Courts have overidden parental consent (which was withheld) and ordered the transfusions against the parents wishes as otherwise the child would have died.

The referendum has been passed and now the childs view needs to be taken into consideration.

As this neatly side steps the health or life to the mother ask yourselves what you would do in each of the two circumstances:

(A) Child needs a lifesaving blood transfusion. Parents refuse consent. Child refuses to give consent. - Do you go ahead or not with transfusion. Going ahead means you trample all over their constitutional rights.

(B) Same as above except child gives consent and parents don't.

And by the way in (A) you are the one to lock the childs room so they can die in peace.


----------



## truthseeker (20 Nov 2012)

WizardDr said:


> As this neatly side steps the health or life to the mother ask yourselves what you would do in each of the two circumstances:



Maybe Im just being enormously thick, but I dont see the relevance of the thought experiment. A 17 week old foetus is not a child.


----------



## WizardDr (20 Nov 2012)

@truthseeker well I won't confirm your own opinion. 

Firstly there have been more court cases on the matter than the unfortunate circumstances we have here. Secondly the referendum change may see a big problem with the next case - type (A) and I thought (foolishly) that addressing issues that are coming down the tracks would be useful.

In the X case the problem is that the opinion on whether X would or would not commit suicide was an expert opinion - and some are of the view that this particular opinion should not have been given the weight that it was.

If the matter were settled - then why did the Bar Entrance Exam have almost an exact scenario on the Constitutional paper in 2012? Because its not settled thats why.

The view could be that - and I dont know the figures - that after a certain period of time a foetus will result in a live birth. To give it a legal flavour - 'a virtual certainty' and BUT FOR the time lapse thats the only reason you are not dealing with a child. The next question then is whats the risk to the Mother?

I am clear that if it were my Wife and if I was clear the foetus was not going to live, and my Wife was at risk, I would have sought an injunction in Justice Hogans house - just like the blood transfusions cases  - and I am also clear - if the facts were that the foetus was not going to live and my Wife was at risk of dying - he would probably have granted the injunction. And if the Hospital to undertake the operation , he would have ordered in Doctors that would. 

However, despite the baying of the media this is one where cold logical analysis is needed, which is absent the current 'debate'. I don't know what the medical view(s) are. What I can say if my Wife died and I believed the Hospital did not act - I would sue them for negligence - and that would be the 'tribunal' needed.

So I am not on any particular side - I just think this is being hijacked to deal with social abortion as opposed to what is actually needed. I simply don't buy the suicide argument. At the same time I have no doubts if the Mothers life is at risk.


----------



## Betsy Og (20 Nov 2012)

I think the point of the experiment is how do you weigh the rights of people with life & death decisions.

My own view is that if you're in a hospital you are there to be helped and made better and obviously kept alive - this is irrespective of your wishes or those of your guardians. This assumes you have a prospect of meaningful life, as opposed to being in a permanent vegitative state (re terminally ill, see below), i.e. I think there are times to switch off the machine, again, sadly, irrespective of the wishes of the family (this may seem heartless, but in theory there could be wards full of people hooked up to machines with no prospect of recover but kept there by family praying for a miracle - recent incidents notwithstanding I think at some point you need to take heed of medical advice, perhaps you give a week or two for people to come to terms with it or to allow for the miracle but at some stage it makes sense to let go). 

If you dont want treatment dont present for care (medical personnel have enough to be doing without wasting their time on nonsense like no blood transfusion), if you happen to be brought there by ambulance or whatever then you will be given appropriate care and discharged, what you do when you leave the hospital (in good health hopefully) is your own business, but dont expect to be let die by people who could save you.

While we're at it (sure lets get all medical dilemmas out there), I do believe that euthenasia (sp?) is morally acceptable - the key difference from the "no transfusions" brigade is that in this case you are terminally ill, you will die shortly without having recovered any quality of life, you have the mental capacity to make a decision, then fair enough, I dont see any benefit in being made suffer to the bitter end - you wouldnt let an animal suffer into death (ok you can pump someone full of drugs and arguably numb the pain but to what end?), I'd rather die without having weeks or months of twilight.


----------



## truthseeker (20 Nov 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> I think the point of the experiment is how do you weigh the rights of people with life & death decisions.



Maybe so, but given that the thought experiment refers to a child and the Savita case is about a 17 week old foetus the analogy doesnt really make any sense.

Just on euthanasia Betsy Og, not only do I think its morally acceptable, I believe it is immoral to refuse it. If I want to take my own life that is my own decision. Making someone suffer is not morally acceptable imo.

It would be nice if this country would allow people to take some personal moral responsibility.


----------



## WizardDr (21 Nov 2012)

Lets be clear.

If you are 18+ you can refuse treatment and die if thats what you want.

The switching off of life support has long been decided.

The trouble is 'assisted' death - and that means you asking me to do X. If I do that, its currently murder, but if you refuse the treatment thats different.

What I am asking is - decide the minor child issue on blood transfusions, as its going to arise.

The issue about the foetus - side stepping morality and any other pointless debate is this - after a certain period of time the foetus (I dont know when  it is exactly) will result in a live birth. So its a temporal issue. Hence the life of the unborn should have trumped a suicide potential anyday.

I believe any advices taken by anyone will suggest that the X Case might be decided differently today because the suicide risk is highly subjective. The time factor from now to a live birth is objective.


----------



## DrMoriarty (21 Nov 2012)

I was having some difficulty following your argument, until you used the words "social abortion", then I understood where you were coming from, despite your claim not to be "on any particular side".

Leaving aside the moral issues, and especially all this obfuscation about blood transfusions and euthanasia, would you say it's the case that legislatures in all the other jurisdictions in which this tragedy would not have been allowed to unfold in the way it did here are simply more naïve or less far-sighted than our own?

And there was me thinking that the failure to legislate for the X case, twenty years on, was a matter of political cowardice and continued deference to Church teaching.


----------



## truthseeker (21 Nov 2012)

WizardDr said:


> Lets be clear.



I do wish you would!



WizardDr said:


> The issue about the foetus - side stepping morality and any other pointless debate is this - after a certain period of time the foetus (I dont know when  it is exactly) will result in a live birth. So its a temporal issue. Hence the life of the unborn should have trumped a suicide potential anyday.



Its a naive simplification to assume that a foetus will result in a live birth and the only issue is temporal.


----------



## WizardDr (21 Nov 2012)

@truthseeker
@DrMoriarty

I used the term social abortion as distinct from one where the life of the Mother is at risk. I suppose 'right to choose' might be a more soothing description where the unborn loses but the Mother's life is not at risk. You could of course go further and take the Dworkin view that the foetus has no existence separate to that of the Mother etc.

The common law - for example Torts - goes along quite well without legislation. 

On a constitutional basis there is apparently the life of the Mother and the Unborn to be considered.

So let the two of you spell out how you balance this right?

And are you saying the risk of suicide trumps the unborn in all cases?

I believe that any opinion being sought today will bear out the problem with the X case and the suicide risk.

Where the Mothers life is not at risk - it is difficult to see from the jurisprudednce how an abortion would be allowed. 

Some times these difficulties are better dealt with by breaking the problem down. Highlighting the blood transfusion case brought it down to one life - the child. I notice of course apart from criticism in abundance - neither of you two have said what you would do.


----------



## truthseeker (21 Nov 2012)

WizardDr said:


> So let the two of you spell out how you balance this right?



The mothers right to choose what happens to her own body trumps everything imo. Im happy for doctors or scientists to set a limit on the number of weeks.

Currently thats how it works anyhow - women who want an abortion take a flight to the UK. If the UK wasnt available then at least some of these women would resort to inserting knitting needles into themselves, or engaging the services of criminal abortionists, resulting in a a double whammy of the loss of the unborn child AND many mothers to infections. 

Legalisation of abortion does not increase the number of abortions in a society. So why try to paper over the cracks of reality. It happens anyway, lets make it safe for the women who choose it.


----------



## DrMoriarty (21 Nov 2012)

You didn't answer my question, WizardDr, but I'll answer yours, briefly.

I personally believe that access to safe (i.e. until 12 weeks' gestation), legal abortion is the right of any woman.

I reject utterly the notion that _any_ religion should have its dogma enshrined in civil law, least of all when it comes to matters of the right to life. You are welcome to believe what you like, but you have no right to legally impose your morality on others, whether or not they are citizens of the State or followers of your religion.

I also believe — again, a strictly personal view — that to continue with the kind of moral posturing which would prefer to continue to turn a blind eye to 6,000+ Irish women "taking the boat" every year, so that we can say there's no abortion in Ireland, is nothing short of rank hypocrisy.


----------



## NOAH (21 Nov 2012)

the most irritating part is to hear all those politicians withering on and trying to score points.

and the last post sums it up exactly, we are a backward country with useless politicians, not much of a judiciary, and it is only publicising cases like savita will force us to grow up and act with proper dignity.


----------



## NOAH (21 Nov 2012)

and leper when we get the result of the enquiry, if ever,  I hope you will come back and amend my post to read FACT as and where appropriate. Its the frontline tonight.


----------



## MrMan (22 Nov 2012)

I think that if we are to allow women choose on whether to abort or not, it should be about giving the right to choose, and not because women already go to the UK, or to avoid illegal/dodgy abortions taking place. We shouldn't just fall into line with our neighbours just because we fear that we look backward or hypocritical, we should do it if the public democratically want it. 
Calling Ireland hypocritical for 'exporting our problem' is nonsense, because every country decides its own laws.


----------



## Bronte (22 Nov 2012)

MrMan said:


> Calling Ireland hypocritical for 'exporting our problem' is nonsense, because every country decides its own laws.


 
I'm going to take issue with this MrMan. Ireland does not allow abortion in rape, incest, where a mother's health is in danger or where there are fatal foetal defects. So what is it these women have to do? What do you think these women should do?

What do you think GP's, obstetricians and gynaecologists tell women who are in those situations above to do? Do you think they give them the phone number of a clinic in the UK, and if they do, is that not us being hypocritical. 


You realise that there is in Liverpool a room for husband and wife that accepts Irish women, and is known as the Irish suite and that in that hospital they carry out abortions only with the medical records from Ireland. Those abortions are not about abortion as a personal lifestyle choice. 

What is hypocritical is that we do in fact export our problem. Do you not think circa five thousand women going to the UK (and elsewhere) is exporting the problem?

If we followed through on basicaly zero abortion we should legislate that no women who is pregnant should have the right to travel to the UK for an abortion, then we could return to women literally trying to self-abort (knitting needles), back street abortions, killing babies after birth and burying them secretly. As we no longer have the Magdalene (for the poor women) and the other birthing centres (for the middles classes), if we didn't have the UK release valve we would be going back to Joanne Hayes and Anne Lovett. Is that what the anti-abortions anytime people want?

Don't you think that we should allow women to choose, to trust that women are in the main life givers, that women mostly want babies, that they love to bring up children, that they hate abortion, that most of us, if not all of us wish that there was no such thing as abortion, that they wish that they too didn't have to choose, that it isn't fair that a women actually is the one who has to choose, but that we should trust them to choose the right option.  Are women not to be trusted to do the best thing, for themselves, their baby, their family, their body.


----------



## truthseeker (22 Nov 2012)

MrMan said:


> I think that if we are to allow women choose on whether to abort or not, it should be about giving the right to choose, and not because women already go to the UK, or to avoid illegal/dodgy abortions taking place. We shouldn't just fall into line with our neighbours just because we fear that we look backward or hypocritical, we should do it if the public democratically want it.
> Calling Ireland hypocritical for 'exporting our problem' is nonsense, because every country decides its own laws.



I cant agree with this MrMan. The only reason we dont have women dying through back street abortions, knitting needles etc... is because the problem is exported. 

Abortions happen whether or not they are illegal. So why try to impose someone elses morality on those who choose to have them? Why not make it safe.

A pro life stance in a country where abortion is illegal and has no options like going to the UK results in more women dying from massive infection, botched back street abortions, etc... It actually causes more death, because now you have the death of the aborted foetus plus in many cases the death of the woman. It is, a true pro death stance.

The doc on Primetime the night before last said that he has outlined risk in many cases to women and in some cases, because maybe they have been trying to get pregnant for years, they are willing to take a risk. But in other cases maybe they have children at home depending on them, and they are not willing to take a risk with their health - so those women go to the UK 
and then come back and continue under his treatment.

It is happening. It happens every day. The numbers are probably under reported as some women use the UK addresses of friends but there are approximately 5000 women a year who use the UK for abortion. 

If those women didnt have the UK would you be happy to accept 5000 women in enforced pregnancies resulting in god knows how many suicides, botched abortions, infections, deaths, depressions etc...


----------



## DB74 (22 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> A pro life stance in a country where abortion is illegal and has no options like going to the UK results in more women dying from massive infection, botched back street abortions, etc... It actually causes more death, because now you have the death of the aborted foetus plus in many cases the death of the woman. It is, a true pro death stance.



How many women in Ireland have died from these things? Given the uproar and media coverage over the last 2 weeks over just one case, I would suggest very very few. I presume you have a link to back it up. Otherwise it's just scaremongering


----------



## DrMoriarty (22 Nov 2012)

How many (more) would you like to die?


----------



## DB74 (22 Nov 2012)

I don't think anybody should die. I am fully in favour of abortion in certain circumstances. But lets not pretend that there are hundreds of Irish women dying every year because of lack of availability of abortion in this country.

Great flippant comment though.


----------



## DB74 (22 Nov 2012)

There was a case during the week where a woman committed suicide ultimately because she was depressed that her unborn child was the wrong gender.

Is this acceptable grounds for an abortion?


----------



## DrMoriarty (22 Nov 2012)

Why ask, when you can clearly read minds?

Incidentally, nobody pretended that hundreds of women are dying every year because they're refused abortions. I can't see what you find flippant in my question, but I'm not going to argue any further with a mindset that holds a clump of foetal cells to be sacrosanct (from conception) but implies that there's an "acceptable level" of women dying from illegal abortions.

The actual mortality figures could probably never be reliably established in Ireland, even retrospectively, no more than the true figures for suicide (sorry, "death by misadventure" — this is a Catholic country...). 

I'm out of this discussion.


----------



## DB74 (22 Nov 2012)

In fairness you were "out of it" already


----------



## truthseeker (22 Nov 2012)

DB74 said:


> How many women in Ireland have died from these things? Given the uproar and media coverage over the last 2 weeks over just one case, I would suggest very very few. I presume you have a link to back it up. Otherwise it's just scaremongering



If you reread my post I said that in the case of abortion being illegal AND no other options available like going to the UK. We have the option of the UK so luckily, we dont have dying women.

Go to RTE player and watch Tuesday nights PrimeTime, the retired UK obstetrician who they interviewed said that when he was a young man it was common to see cases of women dying from infections due to criminal or home abortions, but since abortion was legalised in the UK in 1967 it was practically unheard of for a woman to die in that way.

Here is a link, women die every day due to unsafe abortions - the only reason you hear nothing about it is because we export our problem.


----------



## truthseeker (22 Nov 2012)

DB74 said:


> There was a case during the week where a woman committed suicide ultimately because she was depressed that her unborn child was the wrong gender.
> 
> Is this acceptable grounds for an abortion?



Maybe for her it was.


----------



## orka (22 Nov 2012)

DB74 said:


> How many women in Ireland have died from these things? Given the uproar and media coverage over the last 2 weeks over just one case, I would suggest very very few. I presume you have a link to back it up. Otherwise it's just scaremongering


DB74 you asked this question in response to this quote from truthseeker:


truthseeker said:


> A pro life stance in a country where abortion is illegal and has no options like going to the UK results in more women dying from massive infection, botched back street abortions, etc... It actually causes more death, because now you have the death of the aborted foetus plus in many cases the death of the woman. It is, a true pro death stance.


You seem to have ignored/not read/not understood what truthseeker was saying "_a country where abortion is illegal *and has no options like going to the the UK*_". Your question relates to Ireland which does have options like going to the UK so of course there are few/no examples of women dying 'from these things'. If Ireland could somehow prevent its pregnant women travelling for abortions then there would be many examples of failed back street abortions. 

There was another example of our shameful treatment of women needing abortions in the Irish Times today - the state paid damages to a woman who subsequently died of cancer in November 2011. She became pregnant while receiving cancer treatment but was denied an abortion by her hospital's ethics committee because her life was not immediately at risk. By the time she eventually travelled to the UK for the abortion, she was so ill she had to be helped onto the plane. [broken link removed]


----------



## Bronte (22 Nov 2012)

DB74 said:


> There was a case during the week where a woman committed suicide ultimately because she was depressed that her unborn child was the wrong gender.
> 
> Is this acceptable grounds for an abortion?


 
What do you think DB74?  

You don't have to answer that.  I certainly have no answer.  For her the answer was to end 3 lives including her own.


----------



## Bronte (22 Nov 2012)

DB74 said:


> In fairness you were "out of it" already


 
I actually don't get this comment, could someone explain it to me.


----------



## Bronte (22 Nov 2012)

What is an 'ad hoc' ethics committee. I am aware that previously hospitals had ethics committees to decide on whether one could or could not be sterilised etc. But 'ad hoc' what in this context does it mean. Who serves on these committees, who decides to sit on them. 

And how can you sit on such a committee and judge a woman, and curtail her choices. Do all Irish hospitals have such committees to decide on abortions?


----------



## DB74 (22 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> If you reread my post I said that in the case of abortion being illegal AND no other options available like going to the UK. We have the option of the UK so luckily, we dont have dying women.



My apologies. I misread your original post.


----------



## DrMoriarty (22 Nov 2012)

Bronte said:


> What is an 'ad hoc' ethics committee. I am aware that previously hospitals had ethics committees to decide on whether one could or could not be sterilised etc. But 'ad hoc' what in this context does it mean?


_Ad hoc_ means impromptu, improvised for a specific purpose, case, or situation at hand (and no other).

"Making it up as we go along" might be another way of putting it.


----------



## Betsy Og (22 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Maybe for her it was.


 
In all fairness do you not think treating her depression would have been a better option? Would her husband not be entitled to some say regarding his 2 unborn children?

I dont think suicide was an inevitable outcome by any means (which is why I'd be iffy about suicide as grounds for abortion).


----------



## truthseeker (22 Nov 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> In all fairness do you not think treating her depression would have been a better option? Would her husband not be entitled to some say regarding his 2 unborn children?
> 
> I dont think suicide was an inevitable outcome by any means (which is why I'd be iffy about suicide as grounds for abortion).



Yeah, agree with you.

It was a completely ridiculous example tbh.


----------



## Betsy Og (22 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Abortions happen whether or not they are illegal. So why try to impose someone elses morality on those who choose to have them?


 
Because it is legitimate for a country to have some moral code. I'm all for freedom of expression and what have you, but the outcome here is ending the life of an unborn child - there should be a fairly compelling reason before you allow this to happen.

For example, prostitution is not to many people's taste (nor mine I swiftly add) or is immoral by many people standards, but I'd legalise it as that might eradicate the criminal element, trafficking etc. That is because allowing it to happen, while unsavory, does not involve anyone getting hurt (assuming all are willing participants etc etc etc & I'm aware Rhuhama are against legalisation .... but you get the point). Whereas with abortion somebody always dies.

On the quote above, sure we could legalise murder, after all it happens whether its illegal or not, it might make it safer if the gunman didnt have to speed off breaking all sort of traffic laws and endangering those he didnt intend to kill.......


----------



## MrMan (22 Nov 2012)

Bronte said:


> I'm going to take issue with this MrMan. Ireland does not allow abortion in rape, incest, where a mother's health is in danger or where there are fatal foetal defects. So what is it these women have to do? What do you think these women should do?
> 
> What do you think GP's, obstetricians and gynaecologists tell women who are in those situations above to do? Do you think they give them the phone number of a clinic in the UK, and if they do, is that not us being hypocritical.
> 
> ...


 
Hi Bronte/Truthseeker, I've no problem with you taking issue with my comment, but you seem to have gone off on a tangent. I have said that calling us hypocritical for not providing abortion clinics even though our near neighbours do is nonsense. People go to prague and amsterdam and use prostituts legally, and drugs in some cases, and it is only a case of getting a cheap flight, but you are hardly suggesting that we should adopt our laws to mirror our european counterparts merely because travel is so free and easy? 
I also said that if abortion is to be allowed then it should be because the people want it, so let a referendum decide. I think there is a good chance of the right to choice being passed now, but let everyone decide on the matter.
One final point, a woman can choose to decide on what is right for her, but how can she alone choose what is right for her family? Do you believe that men have no rights in this matter?


----------



## truthseeker (22 Nov 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> On the quote above, sure we could legalise murder, after all it happens whether its illegal or not, it might make it safer if the gunman didnt have to speed off breaking all sort of traffic laws and endangering those he didnt intend to kill.......



The difference there is that there is universal agreement that murder is immoral and wrong (or at least I hope there is!).

But no so with abortion and many of the most modern and progressive countries in the world have some form of it in place. Women who choose abortion are not imposing their morality on anyone but themselves (I dont believe a clump of cells is a person or a child).


----------



## truthseeker (22 Nov 2012)

MrMan said:


> Hi Bronte/Truthseeker, I've no problem with you taking issue with my comment, but you seem to have gone off on a tangent. I have said that calling us hypocritical for not providing abortion clinics even though our near neighbours do is nonsense. People go to prague and amsterdam and use prostituts legally, and drugs in some cases, and it is only a case of getting a cheap flight, but you are hardly suggesting that we should adopt our laws to mirror our european counterparts merely because travel is so free and easy?
> I also said that if abortion is to be allowed then it should be because the people want it, so let a referendum decide. I think there is a good chance of the right to choice being passed now, but let everyone decide on the matter.
> One final point, a woman can choose to decide on what is right for her, but how can she alone choose what is right for her family? Do you believe that men have no rights in this matter?



I pretty much agree with everything you say. Its not a black and white situation. For the record I would agree with legalising prostitution and drugs too.

Very hard call on the mens rights, we discussed it a few days ago. I do think men should have an input but fail to see how it would work in practice and ultimately as its the womans body it has to be her choice what happens to it.


----------



## NOAH (22 Nov 2012)

we are doing too much rambling, this is the savita case so we should stick to the point. the interview on primetime last  is compelling as is the discussion afterwards. the main point was made be a legal person.  look at it on rte player.  I cant remember the exact words but it along the lines of " the question of abortion did not enter into the decision that had to be made, ie save one life and not lose two"


----------



## Betsy Og (22 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> For the record I would agree with legalising prostitution and drugs too.



Apologies for this final tangential point (I think I've said my piece on abortion at this stage), re legalising drugs I couldnt agree to this going beyond spamspamspam. Again its the harm thing - and even on that point I dont think we can be too blase about spamspamspam, modern stuff apparently having far higher THC levels than that of say the 1960's so that its now being closely linked to depression, schizophrenia etc.. So spamspamspam does some harm but I gather its the main volume of trade and profit and to legalise it would take the wind out of the sails of the worst scum the country is harbouring. So on balance I think it would be worthwhile.

However I dont think you could convince me that highly addictive and destructive drugs like cocaine and heroin should ever be legal - look at how we get on with alcohol - and we're used to that, & a reasonable amount of alcohol is no great harm and maybe even some indirect good (social outlet). Re class A drugs, I couldn't see there being any outcome other than more junkies, more od'ing, maybe not even less crime (more junkies needing a hit, albeit presumably a bit cheaper than now).


----------



## NOAH (23 Nov 2012)

why are you hijacking this thead


----------



## Betsy Og (23 Nov 2012)

NOAH said:


> why are you hijacking this thead


 
Calm bull, that was my final despatch.


----------



## MrMan (23 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> I pretty much agree with everything you say. Its not a black and white situation. For the record I would agree with legalising prostitution and drugs too.
> 
> Very hard call on the mens rights, we discussed it a few days ago. I do think men should have an input but fail to see how it would work in practice and ultimately as its the womans body it has to be her choice what happens to it.



Maybe it can just be filed under 'life aint fair' I can't see how it can be put into practice either, but it means that a mans ability to become a father rests on a womans decision.


----------



## Latrade (23 Nov 2012)

MrMan said:


> Maybe it can just be filed under 'life aint fair' I can't see how it can be put into practice either, but it means that a mans ability to become a father rests on a womans decision.


 
Well, in fairness doesn't it anyway, with or without abortion? A man can't decide to be a father and impose motherhood on a woman.


----------



## Purple (23 Nov 2012)

I’m against abortion in most cases. I’m completely against late term abortions. I don’t accept the “it’s a woman’s body so she gets to choose” argument. It’s also a child’s life. It’s not ok to kill your child after it’s born and it’s not ok to kill it before it’s born. When does a clump of cells become a child? I don’t know the answer to that but after the first trimester it’s getting close. 
My opinion is not based on religious grounds; I’m an atheist and so do not believe in any god, gods or deities. 

I think the Indian ambassador and Indian people in general have a bloody cheek getting bolshie about this. Their own country has the cast system, very high levels of abortion of female babies, honour killings and general abject poverty and massive social injustice. It is utter hypocrisy for them to moralise to us about this tragic case.
I find the whole discussion around this sickening. This is a tragic case which should have just been dealt with in the hospital, just as similar cased are dealt with every week all over the country. If anyone thinks that doesn’t happen they are very naive. 
We should legislate for the X case, if only to stop the vacuum being filled with the extremists from both sides. The less we see of Youth Defence type people and the extremists on the other side the better.


----------



## Latrade (23 Nov 2012)

Purple said:


> I’m against abortion in most cases. I’m completely against late term abortions. I don’t accept the “it’s a woman’s body so she gets to choose” argument. It’s also a child’s life. It’s not ok to kill your child after it’s born and it’s not ok to kill it before it’s born. When does a clump of cells become a child? I don’t know the answer to that but after the first trimester it’s getting close.
> My opinion is not based on religious grounds; I’m an atheist and so do not believe in any god, gods or deities.
> 
> I think the Indian ambassador and Indian people in general have a bloody cheek getting bolshie about this. Their own country has the cast system, very high levels of abortion of female babies, honour killings and general abject poverty and massive social injustice. It is utter hypocrisy for them to moralise to us about this tragic case.
> ...


 
I think you're arguing things that aren't even being put on the table as part of the discussion.

I've rarely seen anyone being supportive of a completely liberal abortion law (i.e. one without any caveats). As such have people actually analysed the statistics on late-term abortions? Even those states where they have the most liberal (i.e. purely on the woman's wish without any need for a medical opinion or confirmation) have limitations on how late you can go. And within those confines, most states record extremely low percentages of women having abortions that late into a pregnancy. I think most states are below 1%, I seem to recall the US is around 1%.

The reasons for the late-term varies and heallth reasons actually features quite low in that. In a lot of cases the issue of stigma of both the pregnancy and abortion meant they just kept delaying the decision. 

But, again, where in the debates is there a call to have such late-term abortions? Surely this makes it a moot point purely brought in to colour the debate with images of viable babies being "murdered". 

I agree on India, but then who cares what they think, the pressure is comming from Irish Citizens and that was happening long before India reacted. 

Abortion isn't the only issue that needs discussing. For example, given it isn't an option here, if the state is imposing this ban, then shouldn't the state have support(s) in place to provide options and assistance for people to go through with the pregnancy? This is a problem in some countries, like the US and the UK (to a certain extent) where lack of viable and effect support through and post pregnancy mean that for some abortion is the only viable option. 

It's all well and good to say "tough" and that the individual got themselves into that situation, but that doesn't achieve anything. Countries with good social support and good child welfare systems and have legalised abortion (such as Canada) do not have such an issue with either late-term or excessively high uptake of abortion. 

But, they still have it as an option. An option with caveats.


----------



## MrMan (23 Nov 2012)

Latrade said:


> Well, in fairness doesn't it anyway, with or without abortion? A man can't decide to be a father and impose motherhood on a woman.



I meant when a man and woman choose to have a baby together, she can pull the plug on it if she chooses, he can't. 
I would have presumed that posters would accept that I wasn't looking for men to impose motherhood on women.


----------



## truthseeker (23 Nov 2012)

MrMan said:


> Maybe it can just be filed under 'life aint fair' I can't see how it can be put into practice either, but it means that a mans ability to become a father rests on a womans decision.



Yeah, I hear you. It is a unfair side effect of biology.

There are also cases where men are not told women are pregnant at all and miss fatherhood even though the child is born, which is wrong too.

I was thinking about some kind of consent form that the father would sign, but sure wouldnt some women just claim it was the result of a one night stand and that they didnt know who the father was etc...

I will continue to ponder it.

Maybe someday the ability to remove a foetus from the womb and fully develop it in a laboratory until it becomes an adoptable baby will render the entire abortion debate redundant and also solve the issue for fathers who can choose to raise such a baby alone without the womans body being needed for the pregnancy?


----------



## Latrade (23 Nov 2012)

MrMan said:


> I meant when a man and woman choose to have a baby together, she can pull the plug on it if she chooses, he can't.
> I would have presumed that posters would accept that I wasn't looking for men to impose motherhood on women.


 
I know, I apologise for being facetious.


There will always be potential situations that no one is entirely comfortable with. But in countries that have legalised abortion, how often do those situations come up? How often do couples in the UK plan a pregnancy only for the woman to "pull the plug" without the concent and or knowledge of the father?

My guess is that it is extremely infrequent. So should the small chance of that situation occurring mean that no woman has the right to choose? In my opinion; no. 

But then (as a father myself) I think that my influence has to be proportional. Ultimately if the mother, for whatever reason, is convinced she cannot continue with the pregancy should the decision be 50/50? I don't have to carry the child for 9 months, a child I don't want. What kind of psychological effect would that have? I don't have to have my career put on hold or even effected (maternity and pregnancy discrimination still makes up the greatest proportion of labour court and equality cases).

The impact isn't equal.


----------



## michaelm (23 Nov 2012)

Purple said:


> I’m completely against late term abortions . . When does a clump of cells become a child? I don’t know the answer to that but after the first trimester it’s getting close . . The less we see of Youth Defence type people and the extremists on the other side the better.


A heart beat from 22 days, brainwaves from 42 days and fully formed @ 13 weeks.  Perhaps Youth Defence type people are why we don't have a liberal abortion regime, including the type of late term abortions which you are completely against.





Purple said:


> I find the whole discussion around this sickening.  This is a tragic case which should have just been dealt with in the  hospital, just as similar cased are dealt with every week all over the  country.


Unfortunately certain elements within political circles and their media friends have turned a tragedy into an international circus to further their agenda.


----------



## Purple (23 Nov 2012)

michaelm said:


> A heart beat from 22 days, brainwaves from 42 days and fully formed @ 13 weeks.  Perhaps Youth Defence type people are why we don't have a liberal abortion regime, including the type of late term abortions which you are completely against.



Youth defence are extremists who see this complex issue in good V bad terms. I find them offensive. 

42 days, 6 weeks. After that, for me, it's getting into the unacceptable range. After 13 weeks it's a baby and killing it is, in my opinion, wrong. There are situations where exceptions should be made but they are exceptional.

If it's a case of save the mother or the child then it's save the mother, every time. But that's the situation now. It may or may not be the law but it's what happens.


----------



## truthseeker (23 Nov 2012)

michaelm said:


> A heart beat from 22 days, brainwaves from 42 days and fully formed @ 13 weeks.



How is any of that relevant? A woman has a heartbeat, brainwaves, consciousness and a life that may or may not include having to care for other children. The biology of a forming cluster of cells is an interesting thing to study, but it hardly outweighs the life of an individual who is already in the world, living an independent existence.

Im interested to know what you would like the solution to be where a woman has an unwanted pregnancy.

Should she press ahead with an unwanted pregnancy, have permanent changes to her body, interrupt her career or study, give birth and either (a) give the child up for adoption which no doubt carries a massive emotional impact that may last for the rest of her life (and still doesnt remove the problem of the actual pregnancy) or (b) raise a child that she doesnt want or may not be able to afford (which again doesnt remove the problem of the pregnancy).

What is your solution?


----------



## michaelm (23 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> How is any of that relevant?  The biology of a forming cluster of cells is an interesting thing to study, but it hardly outweighs the life of an individual who is already in the world, living an independent existence.


Strawmen notwithstanding, it was simply a response to Purple's, perhaps rhetorical, question.





truthseeker said:


> Im interested to know what you would like the solution to be where a woman has an unwanted pregnancy.


Really? Hardly.  1. Have the child. 2. either (a) raise the child or (b) give the child up for adoption.


----------



## truthseeker (23 Nov 2012)

michaelm said:


> Strawmen notwithstanding, it was simply a response to Purple's, perhaps rhetorical, question.Really? Hardly.  1. Have the child. 2. either (a) raise the child or (b) give the child up for adoption.



Ok. But the woman doesnt want to do either of those things. Whats the solution? Are you happy enough to condemn women to doing things they dont want to do?


----------



## michaelm (23 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Ok. But the woman doesnt want to do either of those things. Whats the solution?


You can't always get what you want.  The solution is the same.





truthseeker said:


> Are you happy enough to condemn women to doing things they dont want to do?


Indeed, maybe you just can't help yourself.


----------



## truthseeker (23 Nov 2012)

michaelm said:


> You can't always get what you want.



Im fairly mind boggled by your response. I actually find it frightening to think that someone would be happy to force me to endure an unwanted pregnancy. I mean that, it frightens me to consider that. 

Its strange to me that you seem to have a lot of empathy for an unborn child, but none for a living woman - at all. I cant quite seem to square that circle in my mind, it just doesnt connect for me.



michaelm said:


> The solution is the same.*Indeed, maybe you just can't help yourself.*



I dont know what you mean by the bit I bolded? 

I asked an honest question, do you have any thoughts or comments on condemning women to do things they dont want to do? I mean that genuinely? Its surely impossible that you just think 'She has to have the baby' and dont think any further than that. What about the emotional impact on the woman? What about the socio economic circumstances? What about her career? What about her body and the permanent changes to it as a result of a pregnancy? 

I mean, do you think its best that the woman has the baby and raises it, but is miserable and resents the child? Surely that cant be a good outcome for either her or a child?

Do you think its best that she has the baby and gives it up for adoption and suffers emotionally as a result of that?

I accept that you think abortion is wrong, so what then about the consequences of that - as in, the questions above?


----------



## michaelm (23 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Im fairly mind boggled by your response. .I dont know what you mean by the bit I bolded? I asked an honest question . .


Perhaps you boggle too readily. Yours was an entirely loaded question, throw in a couple of straw men, the odd ad hominem and pepper with personal incredulity  . . maybe you just can't help yourself.  If you are interested in my views on the subject (and I doubt it) then just go back to 2008 and read mine and your posts on this AAM thread.


----------



## truthseeker (23 Nov 2012)

michaelm said:


> Perhaps you boggle to readily. Yours was an entirely loaded question, throw in a couple of straw men, the odd ad hominem and pepper with personal incredulity  . . maybe you just can't help yourself.  If you are interested in my views on the subject (and I doubt it) then just go back to 2008 and read mine and your posts on this AAM thread.



Extreme reluctance to engage yet dogmatic views. Odd.

Love it, been reading the thread you linked to and see you got personal with me there too!!! And you didnt enlighten on what you think about the consequences of a pro-life position. Just a lot of nonsense about how people dont know what abortion is and would we be prepared to do it ourselves. And a lot of repetition about how you are against abortion in all cases, oh, except when its necessary to save a womans life, but then its not really an abortion. OK.

Thanks for that link michaelm - now to find my ignore list and edit it


----------



## Betsy Og (23 Nov 2012)

(breaking my promise to move on but...)

The logical conclusion of being a pro-lifer, & I can only speak for myself here, is to continue the pregnancy and give the child up for adoption. I accept that that's easily said, and that it is by no means easy or practical etc, but the alternative is the termination of a life and isnt a life worth some inconvenience?

I was considering a glib comment involving "knocked" and "put" but I thought better of it.

Very hard to adopt in Ireland, very good couples trying to adopt (horrendously strict to be approved I believe - and that's fair enough), so your child would have a better chance than average, you could have that peace of mind. Maybe after carrying full term you'd want to keep the baby and maybe you'd cope there too. But if you decided adoption was best for the child I think that would be responsible. There is also fostering if someone felt they needed to finish a degree or something - normal people get through extra-ordinary stuff all the time.


----------



## truthseeker (23 Nov 2012)

Thanks Betsy Og. Just to apply that conclusion to a global mindset (on the basis that if abortion is wrong its wrong everywhere), UNICEF estimates that there are 210 million orphans in the world right now. If they have no one willing to be their parent or guardian, why would another baby have a better chance?

And it doesnt deal with the changes to a womans body, some of which may be permanent and have psychological effects (I know more than one person who has suffered a permanent negative health consequence of having a baby, from a burst blood vessel in the eye that caused partial blindness to nerve damage causing partial incontinence).

Im not disputing your pov at all btw, Im just wondering how you square up the consequences.


----------



## Betsy Og (23 Nov 2012)

I'll be a bit cute hoor in my response  and say - are we not talking about Ireland??, are there loads of orphans in Ireland??

Its a bit like the "the planet is overpopulated dont have kids" argument - I say - tell it to the Chinese and the Indians, round where I live there's reeks of room for people.

To deal with the worldwide point I'd say, ye lot over there, could ye invest in some contraception, how are ye going to mind all the kids ye are about to have? I dont think anyone makes a realistic point that abortion is a necessary means of population control.


----------



## truthseeker (23 Nov 2012)

OK, grand, just talking about Ireland then. 

Do you still think its a good thing to be encouraging the births of unwanted children? Presumably initially there would be plenty of prospective of adoptive parents. But given the 5000 or so women who seek abortions each year, dont you think we'd run out of adoptive parents pretty quickly? What then? Dont laugh, but do you think the HSE could cope with 5000 odd new orphans a year?

And what about the actual pregnancy and its effects on the body?


----------



## Betsy Og (23 Nov 2012)

What can one say.

I suppose you'd be shot down nowadays for saying a) stop bonking, b) bonk away but use protection/contraception.

Of the 5,000 how many tragic stories are there compared to flippin idiots??

Re changes in a womans body - ok, I know its not fun - but you're about to terminate a foetus (insert any more emotive term you prefer) - dont they deserve a life??, is your stretch mark more worthy than a child living.

Why is the 5,000 a year society's problem?, why cant 4,000 of the 5,000 "woman up" and deal with it.


----------



## truthseeker (23 Nov 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> What can one say.
> 
> I suppose you'd be shot down nowadays for saying a) stop bonking, b) bonk away but use protection/contraception.
> 
> ...



I think that stop bonking is not a realistic option. And contraception fails. I mean, we do need to be realistic. 5000 is the number that seek safe abortion abroad (or approx). Im just trying to tease out the logical consequence of the position that women should just have the baby and give it up for adoption.

Im not sure it matters about people being flipping idiots tbh. If the answer to the problem is 'you were a flipping idiot so just deal with it' I think we have an even less compassionate society than if we legalised abortion!!

I thought the pro-life position was that it *is* societies problem as opposed to a womans problem? The point on womaning up is that these women dont want the child. I dont think that womaning up and raising a child you dont want is a nice life for either.

I had a look for some adoption numbers. Just on a cursory look I found [broken link removed]. 400 adoptions a year currently. 

Allowing that there are long waiting lists, even being generous and more than doubling that figure, say 1000 adoptions were to happen a year. Say 2500 women 'woman up', that still leaves a lot of orphans. And a lot of unhappy women with stretch marks.


----------



## Betsy Og (23 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Allowing that there are long waiting lists, even being generous and more than doubling that figure, say 1000 adoptions a year. Say 2500 women 'woman up', that still leaves a lot of orphans. And a lot of unhappy women with stretch marks.


 
I know, sure as someone said earlier life just isnt fair. But personal responsibility has to come into play, none of us has a magic wand. I suppose my ultimate is - if you cant have your child adopted just get on with it - and in your next life be a bit smarter.

There are loads of problems where not having people exist would be a 'solution', should we round up the homeless?, the junkies?, the bedblockers?, the old?, arent they a drag on society too?, could we just, I dunno..... 'terminate' say 5,000 a year, keep the thing manageable. That darned womb is a dangerous place to be, why do you cry after being born??, at least from then on someone will cry foul if there's a 'procedure' to end your life.


----------



## truthseeker (23 Nov 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> There are loads of problems where not having people exist would be a 'solution', should we round up the homeless?, the junkies?, the bedblockers?, the old?, arent they a drag on society too?, could we just, I dunno..... 'terminate' say 5,000 a year, keep the thing manageable. That darned womb is a dangerous place to be, why do you cry after being born??, at least from then on someone will cry foul if there's a 'procedure' to end your life.



I dont really see how adding to the problems of society is an improvement on things!!



Betsy Og said:


> I know, sure as someone said earlier life just isnt fair. But personal responsibility has to come into play, none of us has a magic wand. I suppose my ultimate is - if you cant have your child adopted just get on with it - and in your next life be a bit smarter.



I dont disagree re personal responsibility at all, but it must be acknowledged that contraception fails, people get raped, people get sick and their pill doesnt work etc... With all the best will in the world, unwanted pregnancies happen.

Thanks for a pleasant exchange Betsy Og.

I will leave it on this:


Betsy Og said:


> ..if you cant have your child adopted just get on with it..


If it was as easy as the above we wouldnt have the 5000 eh?

(next life? Are we Buddhists now? )


----------



## Betsy Og (23 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> I dont really see how adding to the problems of society is an improvement on things!!
> )



Yes indeed it was good discourse. My point above was that killing people could solve at lot of problems if you thought that was acceptable, but i dont think so.


----------



## truthseeker (23 Nov 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> Yes indeed it was good discourse. My point above was that killing people could solve at lot of problems if you thought that was acceptable, but i dont think so.



I agree. Of course foetuses arent people........


----------



## T McGibney (24 Nov 2012)

Great tweet recently from Roger Parrow (@NaasPreacher)   7:30 AM on Tue, Nov 20, 2012:


> We have lost two grandchildren to miscarriage - we have not lost two grandfoetuses. Tell our children the babies they lost were not babies


.


----------



## oldnick (24 Nov 2012)

Gosh, I'd swear I'd never get involved in this but the last post pushed me.

In Mr Parrow's example a babies were dearly wished for. They did not survive. So naturally they are to be regarded as dearly lost children.

Exactly the same as happened to my wife and I - she miscarried. We also regarded it as the loss of a child.

Eventually, we managed to adopt a baby girl (Impossibly difficult to do in ireland as I was "too old" at 42 when we applied -so we went thru UK channels. We so regret that we had delayed adopting and thus were not able to adopt more).

If my daughter ,now 19, was raped and had no desire to bear the foetus/baby/child of the rapist,   or if her life  -even her health - was at risk I would move heaven and earth to procure an abortion for her if that was her wish.


----------



## truthseeker (24 Nov 2012)

Mr Parrow is free to use whatever terminology he likes. A one year old is called a one year old because their existence as a person started a year beforehand. See how I can play the linguistics game too?


----------



## WizardDr (25 Nov 2012)

@DrMoriarty
Just a brief catch up.
Morality didn't come into my argument. What I said was quite simple is that there comes a stage in a pregnancy when it is virtually certain that a live baby results. There is no moral statement in that. In point of fact the right to choose is a moral statement.

What it simply raises on a constitutional basis - because its in there - that there is an equal right to life of the mother and the unborn.

This rules out a termination other than where the Mother's life is in danger. Thats law not morality.

The X case presented suicide as such a risk -and hence etc.

So forget the morality - stick to the law. If the suicide case gets rerun again it will likely fail.

And as the law currently stands - there in no provision for any other termination.


----------



## Purple (26 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Of course foetuses arent people.



Serious question; Do you not consider any ‘unborn’ a child? Is it ok to terminate a pregnancy right up to birth?
If a mother had an elective c-section 4 or 6 weeks prematurely would it be ok to terminate that foetus outside the womb?

I agree that it’s a terrible thing for a woman to have to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term but it is my opinion that killing a child is worse.


----------



## truthseeker (26 Nov 2012)

Purple said:


> Serious question; Do you not consider any ‘unborn’ a child? Is it ok to terminate a pregnancy right up to birth?
> If a mother had an elective c-section 4 or 6 weeks prematurely would it be ok to terminate that foetus outside the womb?



No, and I dont think anyone is advocating late term abortions. You have asked me this before. There is a point (Im happy to let doctors and scientists decide this) where a foetus will not survive outside the womb even with massive medical intervention, mechanical breathing etc...

It is the dependency on the mothers body where I have the issue. I think that abortions are terrible and I think that unwanted pregnancies are terrible, but I think the worse moral wrong is to force someone to have a baby they dont want and all the consequences of that.

If you needed a kidney or you would die, and mine was the only kidney match - I dont think I should be forced to give you my kidney. I dont think that people, conscious, sentient people, should be forced to do things that they dont want to do with their bodies - the risk of massive mental upset and an entire life of ptsd is just too awful to contemplate.


----------



## Purple (26 Nov 2012)

So at some stage a foetus becomes a baby, even within the womb. Is that correct? I’m just trying to understand your views, I’m not score points or trying to catch you out. If that is  your view then I agree on that point. We differ in whether the woman’s right to control what happens to her body trumps the right to life of the unborn, or at least when and under what circumstances.


----------



## Purple (26 Nov 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> Yes indeed it was good discourse. My point above was that killing people could solve at lot of problems if you thought that was acceptable, but i dont think so.



I agree. There's no peripheral social agruments for abortion.


----------



## truthseeker (26 Nov 2012)

Purple said:


> So at some stage a foetus becomes a baby, even within the womb. Is that correct? I’m just trying to understand your views, I’m not score points or trying to catch you out. If that is  your view then I agree on that point. We differ in whether the woman’s right to control what happens to her body trumps the right to life of the unborn, or at least when and under what circumstances.



I dont think that you are trying to catch me out! I am fully aware that there are plenty of 'but what about...' cases that can be used to counteract anyones view on this (not just mine!).

Yes, definitely foetuses can become babies in the womb (I say can, because so many things could happen naturally or unnaturally that prevents that - dont they say something like 8% spontaneously abort/miscarry in very early stages?) - anyway....

I mean, the ideal solution would be the invention of some method of growing foetuses to babies outside the womb - (or 100% safe, free, and totally failure proof contraception - but there would still be pregnancy from rapes and possibly others where people just didnt happen to be using the contraception). Then no one would need to have an abortion, nor would anyones body be hijacked. Although it does raise the uncomfortable scenario of so many thousands of babies coming on stream to go into orphanages and taxes going to pay for both the incubation costs and orphanages - once it started costing hard cash I could see us being back to people advocating abortions.

I had a rethink on my kidney analogy. It doesnt cover the personal responsibility of getting pregnant. So, lets say you and I were fencing, and I stabbed you in the kidney, and the only way to save your life would be to give you my kidney. If I didnt want to do it I dont think I should be forced to. Now, Id feel terrible about it, and I probably would want to give you my kidney, but I dont think I should be forced to.


----------



## michaelm (26 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> I mean, the ideal solution would be the invention of some method of growing foetuses to babies outside the womb . . nor would anyones body be hijacked


And perhaps we should re-invent the wheel while we are at it.  The vast majority of people do not live in fear pregnancy or indeed stretch marks.  I suspect that you will be in a very tiny minority who view pregnancy as their body being hijacked.





truthseeker said:


> Although it does raise the uncomfortable scenario of so many thousands of babies coming on stream to go into orphanages and taxes going to pay for both the incubation costs and orphanages - once it started costing hard cash I could see us being back to people advocating abortions.


I'm afraid it doesn't raise any such scenario.  It's a pure nonsense argument.  And if you believe that _cost_ might be an influencing factor for anti-abortion people, well, then you really have little understanding of such people.


----------



## truthseeker (26 Nov 2012)

michaelm said:


> And perhaps we should re-invent the wheel while we are at it.  The vast majority of people do not live in fear pregnancy or indeed stretch marks.  I suspect that you will be in a very tiny minority who view pregnancy as their body being hijacked.



Ok - welcome to the real world where women pay plastic surgeons for tummy tucks. And where contraception is a thriving industry because, guess what? People live in fear of pregnancy. Hang on, arent you a man - ah ok, so you know how women feel about their bodies then 



michaelm said:


> It's a pure nonsense argument.  And if you believe that _cost_ might be an influencing factor for anti-abortion people, well, then you really have little understanding of such people.



You can spout as much disrespectful rubbish as you like, refusing to answer direct questions or explain any of your views, in this thread, in the other thread, in the thread you linked to, and, getting personally abusive, kind of makes anything you post on the issue redundant.


----------



## Bronte (26 Nov 2012)

michaelm said:


> If you are interested in my views on the subject (and I doubt it) then just go back to 2008 and read mine and your posts on this AAM thread.


 
That is a very interesting thread. I was amazed at how many people could be blaise about abortion. Most people seemed so preoccupied about the money rathar the fact that the girl was going to have an abortion. 

I thought Ailbhe's story was deeply insightful, particularly her changing views on abortion once she got pregnant herself. And her brave decision to have it. But that there was a cost to that for her. Literally it shows how women are left holding the baby. What was shocking was that thread was in 2008 and I think she had the child about 6 years before that so 2002 - In 2002 a confused young woman of 19 was pregnant because a condom broke and when whe went to the University doctor for the morning after pill, the morals of that doctor meant she was refused. And after that when she went to another doctor, that doctor told her a pack of lies about her cycle and said she didn't need the morning after pill.  Both doctors had made her feel so embarrassed that she didn't seek any further help.


----------



## Bronte (26 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> You can spout as much disrespectful rubbish as you like, refusing to answer direct questions or explain any of your views, in this thread, in the other thread, in the thread you linked to, and, getting personally abusive, kind of makes anything you post on the issue redundant.


 
Ah come on now truthseeker, we should listen to all views.


----------



## michaelm (26 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> You can spout as much disrespectful rubbish as you like, refusing to answer direct questions or explain any of your views, in this thread, in the other thread, in the thread you linked to, and, getting personally abusive, kind of makes anything you post on the issue redundant.


You won't be happy about this, well, you probably won't care . . but I actually (surprisingly) feel sorry for you.


----------



## truthseeker (26 Nov 2012)

michaelm said:


> You won't be happy about this, well, you probably won't care . . but I actually (surprisingly) feel sorry for you.



Thanks, needed a good laugh this morning.


----------



## Purple (26 Nov 2012)

This is, my its nature, a highly emotive topic. Therefore we should all try to avoid ratcheting it up by using emotive language.


----------



## Yachtie (26 Nov 2012)

I saw this quote recently:

I THINK IN MANY CASES YOUR MORALITY IS DEEPLY LACKING IF ALL YOU WANT IS A CHILD BORN BUT NOT A CHILD FED, NOT A CHILD EDUCATED, NOT A CHILD HOUSED. 

THAT IS NOT PRO-LIFE, THAT'S PRO-BIRTH! (Sister Joan Chittister)


----------



## T McGibney (26 Nov 2012)

Yachtie said:


> I saw this quote recently:
> 
> I THINK IN MANY CASES YOUR MORALITY IS DEEPLY LACKING IF ALL YOU WANT IS A CHILD BORN BUT NOT A CHILD FED, NOT A CHILD EDUCATED, NOT A CHILD HOUSED.
> 
> THAT IS NOT PRO-LIFE, THAT'S PRO-BIRTH! (Sister Joan Chittister)



What a disgusting statement. What gives her (or you), the right to imply this about anyone, especially people posting here?


----------



## Yachtie (26 Nov 2012)

T McGibney said:


> What a disgusting statement. What gives her (or you), the right to imply this about anyone, especially people posting here?


 
My post was not about the people posting here but I do share this person's sentiment. I would also assume that the person whose statement that is is or was a nun (Sister) so to me, it really gives a new dimension to the whole religious view. 

My childcare costs are in around €10,000 a year, add food, healthcare, clothes, toys, etc. and it adds up to a lot of money. There also have been many discussions about working mothers and their work / career prospects so if you take all that into equation you may be able to understand it. I don't think that abortion is a solution to many socio-economic problems faced by families and children born into poverty or to parents who are either physically or mentally unable to look after them but I do think that there is a difference between pro-life and pro-birth.  

In relation to poor Savita, my heart went out to her and her family. I am not qualified to give medical opinion on the issue but I do hope that she didn't die in vain. A loss of a child is a terrible thing for anyone, I can't imagine the pain of her loved ones who have lost her as well.


----------



## truthseeker (26 Nov 2012)

Yachtie said:


> My post was not about the people posting here but I do share this person's sentiment.



Whether on not one agrees with the sentiment expressed (I do), I certainly do not find anything 'disgusting' about it.


----------



## Betsy Og (26 Nov 2012)

I think I posted something similar myself to say "how can people be so exercised about life in the womb, but indifferent after that, e.g. childrens referendum turnout".

However thats just a general observation, it isnt obviously particularly applicable to to either pro-life or pro-choice, I'm sure we'd easily find some looper to say "its all the abortionists obviously dont care about child poverty and wont come out to vote in the childrens referendum, sure its no wonder, arent they pro-death before a child is born at all".

So this "pro-birth" insinutation is pure rubbish, as I said earlier there's a quick and easy solution to a lot of the worlds ills if people want to chose that route.


----------



## truthseeker (26 Nov 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> ...as I said earlier there's a quick and easy solution to a lot of the worlds ills if people want to chose that route.



Certainly speaking for myself, abortion is the lesser of two moral evils for me (ie, between enforced pregnancy or abortion). But of course, its still a terrible thing.

Sometimes we can justify awful things because the alternative is worse to us. For example, if a stranger was raping me and the opportunity presented itself, Id kill them. Of course I would. I would never know if they intended on leaving me alive after their crime, Id be angry in the moment, and most of all Id be afraid, very afraid. 

Is murder worse than rape? Of course. But would I do it - sure.


----------



## T McGibney (26 Nov 2012)

Yachtie said:


> My post was not about the people posting here but I do share this person's sentiment.



So next time a cleric tells someone that "I THINK IN MANY CASES YOUR MORALITY IS DEEPLY LACKING IF..." to advance a less fashionable viewpoint, I take it that you will simply nod your head in agreement?


----------



## Yachtie (26 Nov 2012)

T McGibney said:


> So next time a cleric tells someone that "I THINK IN MANY CASES YOUR MORALITY IS DEEPLY LACKING IF..." to advance a less fashionable viewpoint, I take it that you will simply nod your head in agreement?



I wouldn't have any contacts with clergy and even if I did, they wouldn't influence my opinions. However, I personally do believe that it's immoral to deprive anyone of shelter, nourishment or education regardless of whether the argument is within or outside of abortion issue. 

There are many valid arguments on both sides and they should all be heard and equally valued. Most women would be against having an abortion, I think, but at the same time, should specific circumstances present themselves, most of the same women would appreciate a choice of being able to openly and without stigma discuss and consider all their options before making a decision. Specific circumstances being the key factor.


----------



## T McGibney (26 Nov 2012)

Yachtie said:


> However, I personally do believe that it's immoral to deprive anyone of shelter, nourishment or education.



That's great, so do I, and, I suspect, us all. But I'm at a loss to understand what on earth all this Whitney Houston type moralising adds to the discussion?


----------



## truthseeker (26 Nov 2012)

T McGibney said:


> That's great, so do I, and, I suspect, us all. But I'm at a loss to understand what on earth all this Whitney Houston type moralising adds to the discussion?



Socioeconomic factors can be one reason that a woman does not want to continue a pregnancy - she simply cannot afford a child or another child. 

All the pro-life sentiments in the world are not going to feed, clothe and house that child for her.

Calling a valid point 'Whitney Houston type moralising' is kinda patronising and doesnt really add anything to the discussion.


----------



## Betsy Og (26 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Socioeconomic factors can be one reason that a woman does not want to continue a pregnancy - she simply cannot afford a child or another child.



This flies in the face of taxi-driver wisdom (which we must respect of course..) - dyah see all dem young wans pushin da prams, doin it for the social they are, gerrin a flah from the corpo, everything paid for um. 

I'm not sure this discussion is headed anywhere - soon we'll be on to truthseeker with "dont you know pregnancy can really dry out your hair" and a chorus of us going, "yah, I know, tis tough, but I still wouldnt kill the baby over it".


----------



## Yachtie (26 Nov 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> This flies in the face of taxi-driver wisdom (which we must respect of course..) - dyah see all dem young wans pushin da prams, doin it for the social they are, gerrin a flah from the corpo, everything paid for um.
> 
> I'm not sure this discussion is headed anywhere - soon we'll be on to truthseeker with "dont you know pregnancy can really dry out your hair" and a chorus of us going, "yah, I know, tis tough, but I still wouldnt kill the baby over it".



I am pro choice and I wouldn't kill a baby. Until it's born, it is either an embryo or a foetus. However, I would not wish to give birth to a child with severe illness or disability. You may think of it as selfish or murderous but I'd get over preventing it a lot easier than having a child, putting it, myself and the rest of the family through needless suffering and then losing it.

No offence to anyone but I am yet to hear one reasonable and eloquent argument from pro-lifers, many of whom keep referring to abortion as "baby killing" of something that isn't a baby.


----------



## Bronte (27 Nov 2012)

Yachtie said:


> I am pro choice and I wouldn't kill a baby. Until it's born, it is either an embryo or a foetus. However, I would not wish to give birth to a child with severe illness or disability. You may think of it as selfish or murderous but I'd get over preventing it a lot easier than having a child, putting it, myself and the rest of the family through needless suffering and then losing it.
> 
> .


 
I like your quotation from the Nun yesterday, she is I think some kind of theologian.  So far I don't understand why McGibney was upset by it, he might clarify?

My first child had to go into the specialist unit after birth.  After what I saw in there I could never understand how it was right to keep a baby alive at 24 weeks and other such hard cases.  Don't get me wrong, the nurse and that unit were unbelievable.  So caring and kind.  Brillant doctors and great advances in science.  But some of those babies were going to have a hell of a life and I would consider that the parents lives to be practically over too in some of the circumstances.  There I met an Irish couple, they told me that they would now never return to Ireland because the systems in place there to deal with babies such as theirs were so inferiour.  I presume they knew of which they spoke.  They were quite clearly traumatised.  My child's problems were insignificant in comparison.


----------



## Bronte (27 Nov 2012)

michaelm said:


> And perhaps we should re-invent the wheel while we are at it. The vast majority of people do not live in fear pregnancy or indeed stretch marks. I suspect that you will be in a very tiny minority who view pregnancy as their body being hijacked.


 
A friend of mine considered it to be a parasite. Much wanted babies by the way, horrendous pregnancy, and difficult birth. But one is not allowed to say that one's body is hijacked or that it is like a parasite. People would think you were nuts. 

What's to like about pregnancy when you think about it. The getting pregnant part is a bit of fun, the finding out your pregnant is yippee, the first 3 months no bother (for me anyway), the last 3 months are no joy, no sleep, walking around in the dark for hours on end in the middle of the night, going back to bed, going to the toilet all the time, not being able to lie in any position that would be considered comfortable, one pregnancy I had from the second trimester a pain so severe in my leg that I couldn't go any long distance in a car, so bad that on holiday my husband had to drop me and the first child to a train station as I could not physically stay in the car, and you cannot be taking medication when you're pregnant. Then all the scans and hospital visits and hanging around. I personally didn't find the scan wondrous. Never asked my OH to accompany me (unless he wanted to and he did for the first proper scan of course), there is no woman I know that likes getting examined internally, and my gyny was female but I had to endure some young males too. It's bloody embarrassing and I'm quite cool about my body. I hated being frumpy, feeling frumpy and looking frumpy. Then finally the day has come, I was being induced as the baby had stopped growing, trainee doctors having a go at getting the needle for the drip into my wrist I seem to remember as being a particularly bad moment, I refused all trainees after that. Then they come with the oedema the first of many indignities, and the contractions, oh my what a shock. The epidural being inserted into your back and one is aware that you must not move so the anythestist gets it right because otherwise it can have long term consequences, the trying to push when you cannot feel anything, then an episiotomy, I'll spare everyone on here those details, but I now know why you're not allowed to have sex for 6 weeks after that, finally the baby, blood and guts and all that gore, those details you'll have to ask my other half about, but I don't think he'd be willing to speak about what he saw. He was happy that the baby looked at him on the way out though, I reckon he tries to forget the circumstances of the birth, and you know what some people even film this, like are they for real or what. Not sure if my OH considers natural birth or a caesarean worse, I was awake but could see nothing. He won't talk about that either, typical tough Irish male eh? (One of my brother in laws nearly fainted and had to be seen to) . And it was me that had to go though it not the men. And when the milk comes in, oh my gawd, today I cannot remember what was worse, the milk or the pain from the caesarean. For sure after the first pregnancy I had all myths dispelled and no never looked forward to being pregnant again. I could wear a bikini because my scar is so neat, only 3 inches etc., but my tummy will never be the same again, how does Victoria Beckham do it is what I'd like to know. And so to answer your question, my body was most definitely hijacked and will never be the same again. But I'm happy to be a mother. Sometimes not (insert smilie, cannot currently find that option). And would never hand them back.


----------



## truthseeker (27 Nov 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> I'm not sure this discussion is headed anywhere - soon we'll be on to truthseeker with "dont you know pregnancy can really dry out your hair" and a chorus of us going, "yah, I know, tis tough, but I still wouldnt kill the baby over it".



Truthseeker doesnt really care about cosmetic stuff actually, all she is concerned with is the freedom for a woman to choose what happens to her own body.


----------



## T McGibney (27 Nov 2012)

Bronte said:


> I like your quotation from the Nun yesterday, she is I think some kind of theologian.  So far I don't understand why McGibney was upset by it, he might clarify?



Upset? No, as I said, I just found her comments disgusting. They are positively dripping with condescencion and betray, to my ears anyway, a rather obnoxious superiority complex. If a Priest or Bishop tells their congregation next Sunday that "I THINK IN MANY CASES YOUR MORALITY IS DEEPLY LACKING" (shouted in capitals too ) I think many people would consider them likewise.


----------



## michaelm (27 Nov 2012)

Bronte said:


> so to answer your question, my body was most definitely hijacked


Forgive me if I'm not surprised that you join truthseeker (which, I'm afraid, given some of the posts in this thread has proved as much a antonym as a pseudonym) in that regard.  Despite being merely a man, I have been through the process end to end on quite a few occasions (granted, I've not had to push), and while the first time can be unnerving I found it to very much be a positive experience . . not as scary or dramatic as the picture you paint . . but then you have a flair for the dramatic having recently described expectant mothers in Ireland as "lambs to the slaughter".

IMHO cosmetic, career or economic concerns are no justification for taking the life of the unborn.


----------



## Yachtie (27 Nov 2012)

Bronte said:


> A friend of mine considered it to be a parasite. Much wanted babies by the way, horrendous pregnancy, and difficult birth. But one is not allowed to say that one's body is hijacked or that it is like a parasite. People would think you were nuts.
> 
> What's to like about pregnancy when you think about it. The getting pregnant part is a bit of fun, the finding out your pregnant is yippee, the first 3 months no bother (for me anyway), the last 3 months are no joy, no sleep, walking around in the dark for hours on end in the middle of the night, going back to bed, going to the toilet all the time, not being able to lie in any position that would be considered comfortable, one pregnancy I had from the second trimester a pain so severe in my leg that I couldn't go any long distance in a car, so bad that on holiday my husband had to drop me and the first child to a train station as I could not physically stay in the car, and you cannot be taking medication when you're pregnant. Then all the scans and hospital visits and hanging around. I personally didn't find the scan wondrous. Never asked my OH to accompany me (unless he wanted to and he did for the first proper scan of course), there is no woman I know that likes getting examined internally, and my gyny was female but I had to endure some young males too. It's bloody embarrassing and I'm quite cool about my body. I hated being frumpy, feeling frumpy and looking frumpy. Then finally the day has come, I was being induced as the baby had stopped growing, trainee doctors having a go at getting the needle for the drip into my wrist I seem to remember as being a particularly bad moment, I refused all trainees after that. Then they come with the oedema (I've to find the word and will come back) the first of many indignities, and the contractions, oh my what a shock. The epidural being inserted into your back and one is aware that you must not move so the anythestist gets it right because otherwise it can have long term consequences, the trying to push when you cannot feel anything, then an episiotomy, I'll spare everyone on here those details, but I now know why you're not allowed to have sex for 6 weeks after that, finally the baby, blood and guts and all that gore, those details you'll have to ask my other half about, but I don't think he'd be willing to speak about what he saw. He was happy that the baby looked at him on the way out though, I reckon he tries to forget the circumstances of the birth, and you know what some people even film this, like are they for real or what. Not sure if my OH considers natural birth or a caesarean worse, I was awake but could see nothing. He won't talk about that either, typical tough Irish male eh? (One of my brother in laws nearly fainted and had to be seen to) . And it was me that had to go though it not the men. And when the milk comes in, oh my gawd, today I cannot remember what was worse, the milk or the pain from the caesarean. For sure after the first pregnancy I had all myths dispelled and no never looked forward to being pregnant again. I could wear a bikini because my scar is so neat, only 3 inches etc., but my tummy will never be the same again, how does Victoria Beckham do it is what I'd like to know. And so to answer your question, my body was most definitely hijacked and will never be the same again. But I'm happy to be a mother. Sometimes not (insert smilie, cannot currently find that option). And would never hand them back.



I entirely agree with you Bronte. I had probably the easiest pregnancy and birth in the world in terms of physical but I still don't want to be pregnant again or have another baby. I am not ashamed to say that I had to seek crisis pregnancy counselling as it was unplanned and an old trauma which wasn't dealt with properly spun me entirely out of control emotionally when I found out. 

My excellent counselor spoke to my husband too and she did describe gestation as having a parasite in your body in attempt to explain to him the physical and emotional effect of pregnancy in some cases. It turned out to be a lovely parasite in the end and I wouldn't give him for the world but I am able to be honest about it.


----------



## Firefly (27 Nov 2012)

Firstly, this is a highly emotive & complex area, and I think, should the personal attacks continue, this thread will & should be locked. 

With respect to everyone against abortion on-demand (and I would have always been in this camp myself) I think it's not until an unwanted pregnancy knocks on your door that you can fully understand...in particular, I would also ask that you re-read the last sentence of oldnick's excellent post #75.


----------



## Bronte (27 Nov 2012)

michaelm said:


> . . not as scary or dramatic as the picture as you paint . ..


 
My account was not dramatic or scary, I just tried to give a light fly on the wall commentry so as not to bore people.  My story is completely true it's just not the way it's painted in pretty baby books.  I never tell first time mothers any of the details of actual pregnancy, one only does that for baby number 2 because then you know that they know too.  

I was never scared, not by the pregnancy, nor any of the births.  I also consider by what I've heard from other women that I had easy pregnancies and births and that I was taken care of by excellent medical professionals of my choosing.

But you know what is scary, until we know the details of the Galway case I certainly wouldn't want to deliver there.   I'm not trying to be dramatic, just honest in my feeling.


----------



## truthseeker (27 Nov 2012)

Firefly said:


> Firstly, this is a highly emotive & complex area, and I think, should the personal attacks continue, this thread will & should be locked.



The only personal attacks are coming from quarters who would prefer to see the thread locked to suit their own agenda. They would prefer that none of this is discussed at all. Its a typical response.


----------



## Bronte (27 Nov 2012)

Yachtie said:


> . It turned out to be a lovely parasite in the end and I wouldn't give him for the world but I am able to be honest about it.


 
 That's lovely Yachtie, I feel the same way too about mine.  I wanted to have another one but couldn't face it, (and other issues that it's not good to talk about on here).


----------



## Bronte (27 Nov 2012)

T McGibney said:


> Upset? No, as I said, I just found her comments disgusting. They are positively dripping with condescencion and betray, to my ears anyway, a rather obnoxious superiority complex. If a Priest or Bishop tells their congregation next Sunday that "I THINK IN MANY CASES YOUR MORALITY IS DEEPLY LACKING" (shouted in capitals too ) I think many people would consider them likewise.


 
Thanks for the reply Tommy, I'm not saying I still understand your reply though, but let that lie.   I'm wondering what if your priest or bishop *thought* that the congregations morals were lacking but didn't speak it.


----------



## T McGibney (27 Nov 2012)

Bronte said:


> Thanks for the reply Tommy, I'm not saying I still understand your reply though, but let that lie.   I'm wondering what if your priest or bishop *thought* that the congregations morals were lacking but didn't speak it.



If he thinks it and doesn't speak it, how am I to know?


----------



## michaelm (27 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> The only personal attacks are coming from quarters who would prefer to see the thread locked to suit their own agenda. They would prefer that none of this is discussed at all. Its a typical response.


Are you referring to yourself in the third person again.





truthseeker said:


> You can spout as much disrespectful rubbish  as you like, refusing to answer direct questions or explain any of your  views, in this thread, in the other thread, in the thread you linked to,  and, getting personally abusive, kind of makes anything you post on the  issue redundant.


This is indefensible bile.


----------



## Bronte (27 Nov 2012)

michaelm said:


> Are you referring to yourself in the third person again.This is indefensible bile.


 

And only yesterday you were feeling sorry for Truthseeker?  I think on AAM the rule is you tackle the ball and not the person. 

Maybe we should just summarise the situation. 

Truthseeker is pro choice in any circumstances if I understand her correctly, but would have time limits I think. That it's a woman's body and her choice. 

And Michaelm, you are totally oppossed to abortion in all cases, except I think from the 2008 thread you did I think recognise that sometimes 'medical procedures' which are not to be called abortion, would be necessary to save the life of the mother, as distinct from her health.


----------



## michaelm (27 Nov 2012)

Bronte said:


> And only yesterday you were feeling sorry for Truthseeker?


Yes.  That hasn't changed.  Obviously this is a very emotive issue.  I'm happy to argue the case from pro-life view point . . and have done so many times over a number of years on AAM.  My posts on the subject have always been consistent, concise, clear and unapologetic.  I appreciate that some (many perhaps) vehemently disagree with my view point.  That is not an issue for me.  I think that any fair reading of this thread and the one I linked to previously would show the misrepresentation and false allegations levelled repeatedly at me by one poster in particular.  Unfortunate methinks.


----------



## Betsy Og (27 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> The only personal attacks are coming from quarters who would prefer to see the thread locked to suit their own agenda. They would prefer that none of this is discussed at all. Its a typical response.


 
I'm not calling for censorship or shutting the thread down, it just seems that there's a definite pattern of throwing in any auld reason as yet another 'justification/rationalisation'. And I hope you didnt interpret the bit of slagging (dry hair) as a personal attack.

I think we'll get the legislation we need to stop another Savita case, and if that's done well (dealing with all cases of 'life incompatable outside the womb' whether or not life or health of mother at risk, and other cases where mothers life at risk) then I think that's enough. 

If people want to take the boat then we cant stop them (as shown by the legal case), but to say that we must therefore roll over and approve abortion on demand in Ireland and if we dont we are hyprocrites doesnt stack up. As a teacher might say - if Johnny Englander jumps off a cliff does that mean you have to?, if we as a nation believe abortion on demand is wrong then I think we are entitled to those views - its not a vindictive attitude to the mother is out of respect and concern for the unborn.

I've already given my views as to what the implications are if no women went to England, which is a bit of a theoretical cul-de-sac anyway as we know thats not going to happen.

So comprehensive 'Savita legislation' and otherwise status quo is alright by me.


----------



## truthseeker (27 Nov 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> And I hope you didnt interpret the bit of slagging (dry hair) as a personal attack.



Not at all Betsy! Im all for more conditioned hair as well


----------



## truthseeker (27 Nov 2012)

Bronte said:


> Truthseeker is pro choice in any circumstances if I understand her correctly, but would have time limits I think. That it's a woman's body and her choice.



Good summary Bronte.

Id like to add to that though, I would also like to see better access to contraception (which is very expensive in this country also), better supports for women who do make the choice of having the baby, good counselling services for all aspects of pregnancy/choice, and a better legal system for pursuing dead beat dads (Its a different argument and do not wish to go into it here but countless women just give up because the legal system makes it so difficult to pursue financial support).

When I was in college a good friend found herself choosing to go to the UK for an abortion. She didnt have the money for it, couldnt tell family. The students union paid for it, including counselling services before and afterwards. She would have had no access to any of that other than the fact she was a student in the college at the time. These days the college has a creche for students with babies, that wasnt around back then, but it could influence different decisions?

The absolute worst thing possible, to my mind, is a stonewall situation where we do not talk about this, or do not examine all aspects of choice.


----------



## truthseeker (27 Nov 2012)

Topical!



> Expert group report on abortion set to be published today


----------



## Latrade (27 Nov 2012)

Personally, I think that when accounts from women are being provided from their own experience and the experiences of their friends or relatives and then these accounts and examples are being casually dismissed by men who, by their own accounts "did everything but push", says all too much about this issue and the debates.

From what I have read, I see a mixture of opinions from those who are pro choice. I see those who have personally stated that morally, they have probably couldn't or wouldn't choose an abortion, but feel it should be a choice available and those who have openly stated that they would choose an abortion. 

The conversation is starting to get very uncomfortable, I'm fine with a debate around the practicalities and even the morals of the issue, maybe even a heated debate (it is an emotive subject), but I'm not comfortable with how some of the responses have gone.

Nobody is a position to judge a woman's state of mind or fears (justified or otherwise, who can control their fears?) when they are pregnant. Whether or not that means or justifies abortions, we can at least accept that those fears and concerns are genuine and not be so dismissive of their experiences or make them feel uncomfortable discussing them.


----------



## Bronte (27 Nov 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> I think we'll get the legislation we need to stop another Savita case, and if that's done well (dealing with all cases of 'life incompatable outside the womb' whether or not life or health of mother at risk, and other cases where mothers life at risk) then I think that's enough.
> 
> 
> .


 
We haven't seen sight of the report yet. And I would have no faith in it because they cannot legislate for the Savita case, in my opinion. 

If a womans health is at risk, and it can or could lead to one's life being at risk, but how do you fix that point in time for a doctor. Is it the moment you present in the hospital, an hour later, the next day etc. How on earth would you legislate for that. 

It is not relevant to current law to take any account of the fact that the baby one is carrying would have died anyway. 

First thing you'd have is a case taken against a doctor arguing that he was incorrect on carrying out an abortion as per the constitutional amendment which states that it's only in the case of a life threat that there can be intervention. 

As for suicide being a grounds for abortion as per the Supreme Court interpretation. That had no time limits on it and I don't think anyone in the whole of the country could countenance late term abortions for suicide. So what are they going to do, set up ethics panels to decide who is or is not suicidal. I can see loads of problems with that too. How do you actually measure whether someone is suicidal.

They cannot bring in legislation that goes against the Constitution, and that means another referendum.  Maybe the report, and I don't have much faith here, recomends that.  I'll be interested to see if they say anything about women's health, which as far as I can tell was central to the Galway case.


----------



## Firefly (27 Nov 2012)

Bronte said:


> As for suicide being a grounds for abortion as per the Supreme Court interpretation. That had no time limits on it and I don't think anyone in the whole of the country could countenance late term abortions for suicide. So what are they going to do, set up ethics panels to decide who is or is not suicidal. I can see loads of problems with that too. *How do you actually measure whether someone is suicidal*.


 
The suicidal argument, IMO, is quite dangerous. As well as the very valid question you have asked above, if suicidal is a "get-out" clause then suddenly the powers that be will find themselves trying to answer why our national suicide rates are climbing and also answering the same question by saying it's the only work-around women have to get an on-demand abortion (which makes us look extremely backward). More importantly though, it forces a women to present themselves as being suicidal which in itself has to be dangerous to the woman's mental health. Thirdly, existing services for suicide in this country will be stretched to provide for these women who are not actually suicidal. 

I sincerely hope I have not offened anyone that has been impacted by suicide in any way above and also am not trying to imply that every woman who wants an abortion will present themselves as suicidal, just that it looks like to me like a possible loop-hole.


----------



## truthseeker (27 Nov 2012)

Course there is also the problem of a woman who the doctors claim is *not* suicidal but simply hysterical, who does then take her own life as a result of an unwanted pregnancy - what then?


----------



## michaelm (27 Nov 2012)

Bronte said:


> And Michaelm, you are totally oppossed to abortion in all cases, except I think from the 2008 thread you did I think recognise that sometimes 'medical procedures' which are not to be called abortion, would be necessary to save the life of the mother, as distinct from her health.


It's simply that I agree with the Medical Council when they say "there is a fundamental difference between abortion carried out with the intention of taking the life of the baby, for example for social reasons, and the unavoidable death of the baby resulting from essential treatment to protect the life of the mother."





Bronte said:


> As for suicide being a grounds for abortion as per the Supreme Court interpretation. That had no time limits on it and I don't think anyone in the whole of the country could countenance late term abortions for suicide.


According to the [broken link removed] "In the circumstances of the X case, that meant an abortion but that will not be the result in a situation in which the baby can be delivered without compromising the woman’s right to life. This means that where a woman has a pregnancy that places her life at risk and her foetus is or may be viable, she may have a right to have the pregnancy brought to an end but not a right to insist that the life of her foetus be deliberately ended."


----------



## Yachtie (27 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Good summary Bronte.
> 
> Id like to add to that though, I would also like to see better access to contraception (which is very expensive in this country also), better supports for women who do make the choice of having the baby, good counselling services for all aspects of pregnancy/choice, and a better legal system for pursuing dead beat dads (Its a different argument and do not wish to go into it here but countless women just give up because the legal system makes it so difficult to pursue financial support).
> 
> ...



+1



Latrade said:


> Personally, I think that when accounts from women are being provided from their own experience and the experiences of their friends or relatives and then these accounts and examples are being casually dismissed by men who, by their own accounts "did everything but push", says all too much about this issue and the debates.
> 
> From what I have read, I see a mixture of opinions from those who are pro choice. I see those who have personally stated that morally, they have probably couldn't or wouldn't choose an abortion, but feel it should be a choice available and those who have openly stated that they would choose an abortion.
> 
> ...



I am 100% pro-choice and the main reason for that is that IMHO stigma attached to abortion and even the thought of admitting *unwanted* pregnancy ('What do you mean you don't want to be pregnant??? What's wrong with you???) is uncomfortable for many women who find themselves in this situation. From my own experience, services (counselling) and information which was provided to me swayed my decision in favour of having a baby but without them, the outcome may have been different. I decided to seek help after I drove around an (no longer there) M50 roundabout a couple of times, contemplating driving down the motorway the wrong way. At that point in time, you can say that I was suicidal BUT being able to talk about my feelings and anxieties and get all the information I needed helped me get back on an even keel. This is the most important part. Women of all ages need to be able to talk about these things not only with trained professionals but also with their families and friends without fear and embarrassment. I had terrible time talking to my husband about this at first as I was terrified of upsetting him or hurting his feelings. 



Firefly said:


> The suicidal argument, IMO, is quite dangerous. As well as the very valid question you have asked above, if suicidal is a "get-out" clause then suddenly the powers that be will find themselves trying to answer why our national suicide rates are climbing and also answering the same question by saying it's the only work-around women have to get an on-demand abortion (which makes us look extremely backward). More importantly though, it forces a women to present themselves as being suicidal which in itself has to be dangerous to the woman's mental health. Thirdly, existing services for suicide in this country will be stretched to provide for these women who are not actually suicidal.
> 
> I sincerely hope I have not offened anyone that has been impacted by suicide in any way above and also am not trying to imply that every woman who wants an abortion will present themselves as suicidal, just that it looks like to me like a possible loop-hole.



A young female member of my family took her own life for no apparent reason a long time ago. An autopsy was never carried out and the same as with so many other young women, no one will ever know if some of them were pregnant and felt that suicide was the only way. From lack of that information, this case can not be argued properly. However, as much as suicide may be abused as a loophole in obtaining an abortion in theory, I think that it should be taken very seriously as per my comment above. Unfortunately, mental health services could potentially become over-stretched with something which is very hard to quantify and prove. 

That's why I am in favor of abortion on demand (under very strict conditions that I won't go into right now) and then it's each individual's right and obligation to reconcile their wishes and feelings with their morals. The most important part, I stress again, is to remove stigma and create an open and supportive environment for those who need it.


----------



## truthseeker (27 Nov 2012)

Thats a very brave post Yachtie - thanks.


----------



## Betsy Og (27 Nov 2012)

Bronte said:


> If a womans health is at risk, and it can or could lead to one's life being at risk, but how do you fix that point in time for a doctor. Is it the moment you present in the hospital, an hour later, the next day etc. How on earth would you legislate for that.
> 
> It is not relevant to current law to take any account of the fact that the baby one is carrying would have died anyway.
> 
> First thing you'd have is a case taken against a doctor arguing that he was incorrect on carrying out an abortion as per the constitutional amendment which states that it's only in the case of a life threat that there can be intervention.


 
Re whether would have died anyway - I think that needs to be legislated for (and referendum too) - why have doctors handwringing on whether to act if the foetus/child cannot survive anyway, once that becomes clear (which is fairly early on I gather) I think its only morbid & medically risky to carry a dead or dying child to delivery/miscarriage. 

Regarding at what point in time the call is made, shouldnt it be ongoing monitoring, as soon as say 2 doctors form a view that it threatens the life of the mother (or that there are severe risks to the mothers future health), and there is consent, then terminate. Whether that's on arrival or after a day or whenever.

I'd agree that, all things considered, a referendum is needed but maybe best to get all the detail of the proposed agreed legislation first, rather that a yes/no to abortion type question that 

a) would in all likelihood give a straight No vote and we're no better equipped to deal with the Savita type cases & 
b) would be wide open to interpretation/mis-interpretation as to what the impact of a Yes vote would be (presuming a No means no change). OK even with detailed text there can be cranks mis-interpreting but at least reasonable people can draw reasonable conclusions. 

Re people taking cases, if two doctors agree its best to terminate & mother agrees that should be it, no comeback in a legal sense. I think the Dad will have to be said by the doctors, its not his life on the line. All cases then routinely reviewed every year by an oversight panel as a safety check that the doctors are acting reasonably (I gather you have these reviews anyway for all aspects - so that if, say, there are lots of c-sections (or whatever other procedure) in a particular hospital that is well off the expected norm its worthy of a query to see are the same standards used everywhere).


----------



## truthseeker (27 Nov 2012)

Id be against a yes/no referendum and would prefer to see a scaled menu of options.

Sorry Betsy, think you made a typo at the end - what did you mean by:


> I think the Dad will have to be said by the doctors, its not his life on the line.


----------



## orka (27 Nov 2012)

There are still going to be many grey areas so it is critical that doctors know what they can and can’t do and they should be able to take account of the mother’s views on the risks to her and her life and health. There was a very interesting article in the Sunday Business Post (can’t link as it’s behind a paywall) by Peter Boylan, ex-master of the National Maternity Hospital. He makes the point that obstetrics is one of the few (only?) areas of medicine where the doctors must make decisions without input from the patient – particularly with respect to their view of the risk that they themselves are facing. If a patient is 100% going to die if the pregnancy is not terminated, the pregnancy will be terminated. But what happens if it’s a 90% chance? Or 60%? He mentioned a cardiac illness Eisenmenger’s which has a 50% mortality rate in pregnancy – is that a real and substantial risk? For me, a 10% risk of death in the next 9 months is real and substantial and I would not want to run that risk. Whereas for a patient is in her 40s, pregnant after years of trying, many miscarriages, no other children to consider – her risk tolerance might be different, particularly if the pregnancy could maybe be nursed along for another few weeks to give the foetus a chance to mature. But in both cases, the doctor has to make the call without input from the patient – and at present, with the threat of prison hanging over him if he is found to have incorrectly assessed a risk as being real and substantial enough. And then there’s the Savita situation – not at risk of death but at a small risk of an illness which carries a small risk of death – it’s not hard to see why the doctor made the decision she did.
Although I don’t think there is any appetite to vote in abortion on demand in this country, I’m not sure a straight yes/no choice would be rejected – there are close to 1M women aged between 18 and 47 who were not old enough to vote in the 1983 referendum – which I think could contribute to a strong pro-choice swing . [As an aside, it has only occurred to be in the last day or so that on this thread (and the post-Savita posts on the other thread), there have been no women posting on the anti-abortion side]. I think what would definitely pass would be threat to life, pregnancy after rape/incest, foetus incompatible with life and, the most difficult to define, real risk to the mother’s health. On the ‘risk to the mother’s health’, I think a majority would want to ensure that situations like Savita and Michelle Harte (had terminal cancer and had to go the UK for a termination) situations don’t occur again – whilst trying to ensure that we don’t end up with abortion effectively on demand like in the UK which is supposed to be a two-doctor-risk-to-health sign-off.


----------



## truthseeker (27 Nov 2012)

orka said:


> [As an aside, it has only occurred to be in the last day or so that on this thread (and the post-Savita posts on the other thread), there have been no women posting on the anti-abortion side]



I dont want to name an individual poster but I believe there is at least one female pro-life poster here.

I think there have been some posts here that would put some people off posting at all - regardless of their own particular view.

You make an excellent point on risk and risk assessment. I have a friend who was told in no uncertain terms by her medical team that she was putting her own health at a high risk to continue with her 8th pregnancy (7 previous miscarriages and past her mid 40s at the time of the 8th). She ended that pregnancy prematurely, on bed rest, and has suffered some chronic life long health problems as a result - but she is very happy with the outcome after almost 2 decades of trying to have a child. But not everyone would be happy to take that risk.


----------



## Betsy Og (27 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Id be against a yes/no referendum and would prefer to see a scaled menu of options.
> 
> Sorry Betsy, think you made a typo at the end - what did you mean by:



In a referendum, isnt it always yes or no, but the implications of the Yes would be pre-determined (so its a set menu if you like). I havent heard of a tick whichever option you agree most with.

To be "said by" someone means to put your trust in what they tell you. So  another example "I went to by a new TV from Jimmy that I know, the choice was bewildering, I hadnt a clue but Jimmy made a recommendation and since I know him well I decided I'd be said by him."


----------



## Bronte (28 Nov 2012)

Yachtie thank you so much for sharing your story with us.  You are brave indeed. I'm so glad that you are in a much better place now.  I was thinking about your story all night as it moved me so much.


----------



## Bronte (28 Nov 2012)

Betsy Og said:


> Regarding at what point in time the call is made, shouldnt it be ongoing monitoring, as soon as say 2 doctors form a view that it threatens the life of the mother (or that there are severe risks to the mothers future health), and there is consent, then terminate. Whether that's on arrival or after a day or whenever.
> 
> .


 
Women, whose health and sometimes life is at risk have no say whatsoever. Just imagine, that in this day and age, we have absolutely no control on a decision being taken over our life or health. That is exactly the situation Savita found herself in. She knew her health was at risk, she knew the baby was dying and probably because she was medically trained she knew there was a potentional life risk. Her views on the matter were irrelevant and I belive legislation cannot change that because of the amendment to the Constitution does not give us women that right. It give us a right to live only, to be decided by others, who may view the babies right to life as equal to ours.

So let's say we set up a decision making team of 2 doctors, what if their morals are such that a child's life is equal to the mothers despite her life being in danger. What if a mothers health is in danger, but there is only a 1 per cent chance of her life being in danger. There is no way this can be put in legislation.

The only solution is not puttting abortion into the Constitution but taking it out. A referendum on the removal of that amendment is what is needed and instead put in nothing and then leave it up to the Oireachtas (and of course repel the 1861 Act first - that should be done right now - what are they waiting for, this is the one thing the can do, if they had any respect for women right now). If there is a chance of a competing clause in the Consitition than a very simple clause such as

_Laws for abortion shall be decided by the Oireachtas_

is all that is required and let the law makers than do their job.


----------



## Bronte (28 Nov 2012)

orka said:


> There was a very interesting article in the Sunday Business Post (can’t link as it’s behind a paywall) by Peter Boylan, ex-master of the National Maternity Hospital. .


 

Is there any other way of getting that article?

*Doctors versus the anti-abortion side*

Interesting that there is actually a battle going on here for the first time I think between these two sides. Suddently the doctors have started to speak up on the legal quandry they find themselves and no doubt many of the are disgusted at having to be left in this mess and having to advice the women they see to go to the UK, imagine what that must do to them. Imagine that poor doctor in the Michelle Harte case. And his hands were tied. 

The battle for those that don't know it is that the anti-abortion people want the Savita case to be a medical malpractice case. They are categoric that there is no grey area. 

The doctors know this is not true, that it is legal minefield for them but up until now they have been afraid, with very good reason, to say anything.  It can affect their careers no doubt.  Certain hospitals can be run by a certain mindset and doctors well know this.  You comply or leave.  Which is probably what happened in Galway.


----------



## T McGibney (28 Nov 2012)

Bronte said:


> _Laws for abortion shall be decided by the Oireachtas_
> 
> is all that is required and let the law makers than do their job.



Do you really think that proposal would have a snowball's chance in hell of being passed?  As a class, politicians are despised and distrusted by the people. That's why the electorate refused to approve the referendum proposal on Dail enquiries, which would have facilitated the grilling of Sean Fitzpatrick et al.


----------



## Yachtie (28 Nov 2012)

Thanks truthseeker and Bronte! My intention was not really to be brave but it just grates on me when people who have had no relevant experience (in relation to the issue) start bleating on about it. It is a very sensitive and emotive issue and the best people to discuss it are those who can relate to it. Luckily, I wasn't a rape or incest victim and my physical health wasn't in jeopardy but as women know, a lot goes on in pregnancy. Physically (other than having a future baby growing inside of you) and especially psychologically and emotionally. 

There was a very good documentary called 'Born of War' about Bosnian women who were raped during the war. I was particularly touched by one who went on to have a baby and was told that it's ok to leave the baby in the hospital if she didn't want him (she had a boy). He was in an orphanage for several years but eventually she decided to look for him. After a long search they were reunited and are still together (he could be around 20yo now). This or a similar case may show that mother's love knows no atrocities and has no bounds, but on the other hand, there were a lot more children and their mothers who have never seen each other and are deeply scarred by what happened to them and how they came into this world. As with anything else, experience of pregnancy (regardless of whether it originates from a stable, loving relationship, one night stand or rape) is so unique to each individual that there is absolutely no way of finding a solution suitable for everyone and putting it on paper other than creating a controlled and safe environment for each individual to excercise their choices.

Another thing that I find very hypocritical is the fact that foetuses miscarried up to 24 weeks (I think, somebody correct me if this is incorrect) are treated as medical waste and incinerated without being registered as stillbirths or parents being given an option of burying them. If you want to give something rights, then the rights have to be through and through.


----------



## Purple (28 Nov 2012)

I wonder if there is any examples of women who decided not to abort and had their child but then regretted having that child.

There is a strong undercurrent in the media which seems to presume that men shouldn’t have an equal voice in this debate as it is a woman’s body and therefore this is a women’s issue. If that’s the case should women who are unable to have children due to medical or age issues also be excluded from the debate?


----------



## MrMan (28 Nov 2012)

Good point Purple.


----------



## truthseeker (28 Nov 2012)

Purple said:


> I wonder if there is any examples of women who decided not to abort and had their child but then regretted having that child.



Of course! I personally know more than one woman who, while they do love their child, regret how their life has turned out as a result of having that child. Most of them would regret getting pregnant rather than regret not having had an abortion.

But past regrets are meaningless, they could have not gotten pregnant or had the abortion and still had their life turn out in a way that didnt give them happiness.


----------



## Latrade (28 Nov 2012)

Purple said:


> I wonder if there is any examples of women who decided not to abort and had their child but then regretted having that child.
> 
> There is a strong undercurrent in the media which seems to presume that men shouldn’t have an equal voice in this debate as it is a woman’s body and therefore this is a women’s issue. If that’s the case should women who are unable to have children due to medical or age issues also be excluded from the debate?


 
There's a difference between not having an equal voice and being excluded so the argument isn't valid. As far as I can see no one is saying exclude men from the debate, in fact from what I can see in the media and government the majority of those deciding and debating are men. On here opinions have also been pretty fairly distributed among the sexes and there has been no call to stop men (including me) from debating. The only issue is whether a man can fully understand a woman's view, fears or concerns either way, which is not the same. 

The only area I've seen where there is a degree of debate over a man's role is whether the father has an equal say in the abortion or not. I think that is a difficult question to answer, but again it is not the same as being excluded from a debate or from having a say.


----------



## Yachtie (28 Nov 2012)

truthseeker said:


> Of course! I personally know more than one woman who, while they do love their child, regret how their life has turned out as a result of having that child. *Most of them would regret getting pregnant rather than regret not having had an abortion.*
> 
> But past regrets are meaningless, they could have not gotten pregnant or had the abortion and still had their life turn out in a way that didnt give them happiness.


 
My child is the most important thing in my life and I love him more than I could possibly put into words BUT if I could go back in time and the decision was mine, I would choose NOT to get pregnant. I do not regret having a baby or not having an abortion but I probably would regret both if my circumstances were different to what they are. By nature, I am very pragmatic and practical so for example, difficult economic circumstances and inability to provide for a child would be a factor for me.


----------



## truthseeker (28 Nov 2012)

Yachtie said:


> My child is the most important thing in my life and I love him more than I could possibly put into words BUT if I could go back in time and the decision was mine, I would choose NOT to get pregnant. I do not regret having a baby or not having an abortion but I probably would regret both if my circumstances were different to what they are. By nature, I am very pragmatic and practical so for example, difficult economic circumstances and inability to provide for a child would be a factor for me.



Yes, thats really what I meant.

I do know one person who wanted an abortion, her parents persuaded her not to have it, there was no crisis pregnancy counselling or anything like that - it was 20 odd years ago, she lived at home with her parents. Anyway, she had the child, and a few months later simply couldnt cope, had a nervous breakdown and tried to give the child up for adoption. Her parents again stepped in and said that they would adopt the child themselves. But the girl didnt want the child in her life at all, her parents adopting the child meant theyd all still be living in the same house. Very difficult situation for everyone involved.


----------



## michaelm (28 Nov 2012)

Purple said:


> I wonder if there is any examples of women who decided not to abort and had their child but then regretted having that child.


No doubt some will rue the fact that they ever became pregnant but I wonder how many of those will regret not opting for abortion.  I suspect it would be a tiny fraction.


----------



## Yachtie (28 Nov 2012)

michaelm said:


> No doubt some will rue the fact that they ever became pregnant but I wonder how many of those will regret not opting for abortion. I suspect it would be a tiny fraction.


 
It doesn't really matter how many regret not opting for abortion.  

A child changes person's and couple's life, for some for the better and for some (regardless of how small the group may be) for the worse. Some women fly through the pregnancy, some develop life-long medical conditions (Diabetes being one example). In this day and age, everyone either is or can easily get extremely well infromed of all kinds of risks and benefits. To go back to poor Savita, she could easily have googled 'dilated cervix at 17 weeks pregnant' on her smartphone and found out the likelyness of her foetus surviving. As an intelligent, educated woman in tremendous pain with knowledge that the chances of carrying pregnancy to term were non existent, she and her husband should have had the right to terminate despite what you, I or anyone else think about it. The same goes for the lady with terminal cancer who had to go to UK for an abortion - it's not up to any of us to judge her reasonong. She may have wanted to extend her life through appropriate therapy which she couldn't take while pregnant or maybe she didn't want to leave a motherless child. Or both.


----------



## Purple (28 Nov 2012)

Yachtie said:


> It doesn't really matter how many regret not opting for abortion.
> 
> A child changes person's and couple's life, for some for the better and for some (regardless of how small the group may be) for the worse. Some women fly through the pregnancy, some develop life-long medical conditions (Diabetes being one example). In this day and age, everyone either is or can easily get extremely well infromed of all kinds of risks and benefits. To go back to poor Savita, she could easily have googled 'dilated cervix at 17 weeks pregnant' on her smartphone and found out the likelyness of her foetus surviving. As an intelligent, educated woman in tremendous pain with knowledge that the chances of carrying pregnancy to term were non existent, she and her husband should have had the right to terminate despite what you, I or anyone else think about it. The same goes for the lady with terminal cancer who had to go to UK for an abortion -* it's not up to any of us to judge her reasonong*. She may have wanted to extend her life through appropriate therapy which she couldn't take while pregnant or maybe she didn't want to leave a motherless child. Or both.




I disagree. Society sets moral standards and members of society get judged by those standards. The issue here is do the laws reflect society's standards and if not how should they be changed. 
I agree that where the mother's life is at risk the pregnancy should be terminated. That's the constitutional position and the Dail should legislate accordingly.


----------



## truthseeker (28 Nov 2012)

Purple said:


> The issue here is do the laws reflect society's standards and if not how should they be changed.



Thats why we should have some kind of referendum. I dont know what society thinks on the issue of abortion, none of us do. Based on the pro-choice side winning the last 4 referenda to loosen up the rules, and the x case now being 20 years old, thats exactly why its time to ask society what they think.


----------



## orka (28 Nov 2012)

Purple said:


> I wonder if there is any examples of women who decided not to abort and had their child but then regretted having that child.





michaelm said:


> No doubt some will rue the fact that they ever became pregnant but I wonder how many of those will regret not opting for abortion. I suspect it would be a tiny fraction.


Even in cases where abortion had been considered, it is (thankfully) a rare thing for a mother not to love her child unconditionally, to not be able to imagine life without the child etc. etc. That still doesn’t mean it was the best decision the woman could have made for herself. We don’t have the option of peering into an alternate universe and seeing what her happiness levels would have been if she had chosen the abortion route. She might have ended up with better alternate life, love and family outcomes. 

Education, career hopes, dreams of travelling and future love/family prospects are all affected by having a child. I know more than one woman who had a child on her own and didn’t manage to go on to get married and have further children as she would have dearly loved. Having one child at a young age, devoting your life to him as a single parent in your 20s and 30s, having no more children and no marriage can make you very lonely in your 40s and beyond when your only child leaves home. And having a child does affect how future relationships work out – the practicalities of dating in terms of babysitting, issues around if/when/how to introduce the boyfriend to the child, and also just how having a child from a previous relationship is perceived by the boyfriend, his friends and family. It is different – and rarely in a good way.

So while a mother might not sit looking at her child and wishing he had never been born, it is simplistic to imply that that means that abortion would not have been best for her and her life. 

What would you want for your daughter/sister? To be adequately content with her life or happy and fulfilled in as many ways as possible?


----------



## Yachtie (28 Nov 2012)

Purple said:


> I disagree. Society sets moral standards and members of society get judged by those standards. The issue here is do the laws reflect society's standards and if not how should they be changed.
> I agree that where the mother's life is at risk the pregnancy should be terminated. That's the constitutional position and the Dail should legislate accordingly.



Maybe you'd feel differently in relation to society (aka a lot of people who don't know you or anything about you and your family) if the subject was your wife, sister or daughter.


----------



## MrMan (29 Nov 2012)

Of course you would feel differently if a case involved your own family, but that is why society as a whole should set a standard, and not just those emotionally involved.


----------



## Bronte (3 Dec 2012)

While I'm still waiting for Bullbars medical peer review of the Dublin Symposium declaration on the other thread I see that we Irish have indeed made the editorial in the Lancet  

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)62009-1/fulltext#


----------



## Bronte (3 Dec 2012)

Purple said:


> There is a strong undercurrent in the media which seems to presume that men shouldn’t have an equal voice in this debate as it is a woman’s body and therefore this is a women’s issue. If that’s the case should women who are unable to have children due to medical or age issues also be excluded from the debate?


 
For the life of me I cannot understand why this would worry you? The 1861 Act was written by men, the Irish constitution was written by a deeply Catholic male Prime Minister in conjunction with that most pro feminine of organisations in no less a person than Archbishop McQuaid. And a most peculiar constitution it is too on it's views on women. 

And we now know what the Catholic Church did with women who were pregnant outside marriage and we know how they treated the children of those women and indeed other children. 

The current Dail is made up vastly of men, the Health Minister is a man, as indeed is most of the Cabinet. 

But it's a woman who is dead. And only one man who is telling it like it is in that government. Alan Shatter. 

Anyone who thinks that legislation for the x case would solve the issue in Galway had better understand that it even if they bring in legislation, the hoops women will have to go through to prove they are suicidal, being assessed by clinicians such as Patrica Casey who in 30 years of practise does not agree that there is such a thing as a woman who is suicidal because of a pregnancy. As she stated that more than once on RTE I thought of Anna Byrne (pregnant with twins on top of a cliff, who 'fell' - death by misadventure.) and wonder whether if she had been her patients she would be alive today, methinks not.

One of my best friends is from South Africa, she was pregnant at 15 and wanted to have an abortion. At that time it was very restrictive there and she had to pretend to be suicidal, but was forced to attend therapy sessions as a condition of being allowed an abortion, she has told me that the trauma of the 'therapy' on her at 15 was far worse than the abortion itself. It is amazing what women have to go through to decide their own life choices.

I was wondering Purple if you envision any circumstances where you think abortion should be allowed? I understand the moral difficulty you have with it from your posts, but you've stated you'd be willing to kill someone who raped a child of yours, which you had no difficulty with morally I think. If I've got it wrong please correct me. 

Another question for you, your house no doubt receives the Irish Medical Times, not sure if you read it, but if you do, can you remember if there was ever an article by an Irish doctors that ever suggested abortion should be allowed in Ireland?


----------



## Purple (3 Dec 2012)

Bronte said:


> For the life of me I cannot understand why this would worry you?  The 1861 Act was written by men, the Irish constitution was written by a deeply Catholic male Prime Minister in conjunction with that most pro feminine of organisations in no less a person than Archbishop McQuaid.
> 
> And a most peculiar constitution it is too on it's views on women.
> 
> ...



Two wrongs don’t make a right. 
The constitution is out of date and is far too political and should be updated or replaced but that’s a different issue.
It is not morally right or socially desirable that any group be excluded or sidelined from national discussions that have complex moral implications for the sort of society we want.

I agree on Alan Shatter; he's being honest about this whole issue.


----------



## Bronte (3 Dec 2012)

Purple said:


> It is not morally right or socially desirable that any group be excluded or sidelined from national discussions that have complex moral implications for the sort of society we want.
> 
> .


 
I agree with you, but I think it's women's view which have been excluded and sidelined up to now? Men just decided what was good for us don't you think?

Where have you seen the suggesion that men should be excluded from the issue?

Is there a reason you didn't answer my question on whether you think abortions should ever be allowed?


----------



## michaelm (3 Dec 2012)

Purple said:


> It is not morally right or socially desirable that  any group be excluded or sidelined from national discussions that have  complex moral implications for the sort of society we want.


I don't believe that there is a desire to exclude men in general, just men who are anti-abortion.





Bronte said:


> And we now know what the Catholic Church did with women who were pregnant outside marriage and we know how they treated the children of those women and indeed other children.
> 
> The current Dail is made up vastly of men, the Health Minister is a man, as indeed is most of the Cabinet.


This has no relevance to the arguments for or against abortion.





Bronte said:


> But it's a woman who is dead.


This tragic story is being repeatedly misused, to great effect heretofore, by the pro-abortion lobby (I'm not suggesting you, just the ICN and others who had  of same).  Even Kitty Holland who broke the story in the Irish Times seems to be stepping back somewhat (in this Newstalk  @ 33m:20s) and effectively saying, things aren't entirely clear, let's wait for the reports.


----------



## Bronte (3 Dec 2012)

michaelm said:


> .This tragic story is being repeatedly misused, to great effect heretofore, by the pro-abortion lobby (I'm not suggesting you, just the ICN and others who had  of same).


 

What is your point about ICN knowing about the death of Savita 3 days before it was published in the Irish times. In other words so what? 

Do you think that if Savita's husband or family went to Youth Defence or the Iona institute we'd have heard anything about it. Do you think if the Irish Times hadn't published it we would have 2 HSE/Hiqua enquires and possibly 3? 

Do you think that all the world's media, respected media in nearly every country in the world, and famous medical journals such as the Lancet are all on a pro abortion lobby? Why do you think that all the world's media have commented on this story?

*Church views on women and children and abortion*

How can you say that the way the Church dealt with women and children is not relevant to the abortion debate. They are categorically anti abortion. They have told the Irish people what do in the referndums etc. They helped to put together the Constitution with it's peculiar slant on Irish womanhood. By their treatment of women in the Magdelen laundries and their treatment of children in industrial schools and elsewhere, it is important to point out their views on women and children. 

Also it's important to point out that the original proposed constitutional amendment did not even bother to refer to the woman's equal right to life. Whose bright idea was that?

What do you think would happen to the 12 Irish women who go to the UK and elsewhere if they were forced to stay here and forced to proceed with a pregnancy. Maybe we should stop with the hypocracy and take out the current constitutional amendment and put in one banning all abortions and banning travel to the UK and maybe we should set up border controls to examine women at airports and ports to see if they are pregnant and then test them when they return to see if they've had an abortion and prosecute them. 

If you follow the logic of what you're saying that is where we should be at.

*Men and abortion*

If men were the one's who got pregnant we wouldn't be having this debate.  If it were mostly female legislators we would have had abortion long ago.  I cannot prove either of those points but I believe it.


----------



## Purple (3 Dec 2012)

I have been described by many people as anti-Church. I’m comfortable with that description. That said they are entitled to their opinion and to express that opinion and they are entitled to tell their members what the RC Church’s rules are. If people want to be a member of a club then it’s not unreasonable that the rules of the club are pointed out to them. I’m not a member and disagree with their rules and that’s my right but that doesn’t mean they can’t express their views.


----------



## michaelm (3 Dec 2012)

Bronte said:


> What is your point about ICN knowing about the death of Savita 3 days before it was published in the Irish times. In other words so what?


Just that I was admonished early on for suggesting that a lot of the spontaneous outrage at this case may have been organized, prior to the story breaking, for the purpose of pushing an agenda.  I don't think that can be denied now.  We should wait for the reports.

I wonder if any posters here are members of any campaigning groups on either side of this debate; I'm not, although I'm keenly interested in the topic.


----------



## Bronte (3 Dec 2012)

michaelm said:


> Just that I was admonished early on for suggesting that a lot of the spontaneous outrage at this case may have been organized, prior to the story breaking, for the purpose of pushing an agenda..


 
You mean pushing the agenda for abortion?

Well if an abortion would have saved Savita, don't you think that's an important agenda?

Could you clarify where you see the organised agenda of which you speak?  

What is it you are waiting for in the reports?  That she would have dies anyway because she already had untreatable septicimea or e-coli?  Or that the doctors were incompetent and it was medical negligence?


----------



## michaelm (3 Dec 2012)

Bronte said:


> What is it you are waiting for in the reports?


Just the facts of the case.  And we shouldn't have long to wait.  In the meantime the pro-abortion lobby will wring what they can out of the story.  Although our liberal media are quite malleable they are also quite fickle so their interest in this story will wane.


----------



## Latrade (3 Dec 2012)

michaelm said:


> Just the facts of the case. And we shouldn't have long to wait. In the meantime the pro-abortion lobby will wring what they can out of the story. Although our liberal media are quite malleable they are also quite fickle so their interest in this story will wane.


 
Damn those liberals. I remember one of them said the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard: "judge not, that ye be not judged". Can't remember where I read it, think it was an op-ed piece in one of the really liberal newspapers or something.


----------



## Bronte (4 Dec 2012)

michaelm said:


> . In the meantime the pro-abortion lobby will wring what they can out of the story.


 

And what do you think the pro-abortion lobby are achieving that they shouldn't ?  Do you not think they don't want women to die for lack of care because a doctors has a certain medical ethic or is afraid of the medical council, or another staff member reporting him or being prosecuted under the 1861 Act?


----------



## bullbars (4 Dec 2012)

Bronte said:


> While I'm still waiting for Bullbars medical peer review of the Dublin Symposium declaration on the other thread


You can stay waiting. Or like I said, you may go and reserch what was discussed at the symposium and by who before leaping to ridiculous conclusions and denoucing it. It is not up to me to peer review, you seem confused as to who should do this.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Dec 2012)

Bronte said:


> As she stated that more than once on RTE I thought of ... and wonder whether if she had been her patients she would be alive today, methinks not.



This lady's grieving family have not sought to make a political football out of her incredibly sad and tragic death, least of all in the context of what is now a bitter and twisted abortion debate. It ill-behoves you to attempt to do so. To be blunt, you should delete your comment.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Dec 2012)

T McGibney said:


> .........what is now a bitter and twisted abortion debate.



How can debate be bitter and twisted? I dont understand this comment.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Dec 2012)

truthseeker said:


> I dont understand this comment.



And I don't understand yours.  I guess that makes us quits.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Dec 2012)

T McGibney said:


> And I don't understand yours.  I guess that makes us quits.



Im sorry, what is unclear? You used the expression "bitter and twisted abortion debate" - can you explain what you meant by that as I do not understand it.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Dec 2012)

Its rather self-explanatory, people on both sides of the debate (in general, not AAM) are getting somewhat angry and bitter and some people have been saying and writing thing things that they've later regretted.


----------



## truthseeker (4 Dec 2012)

T McGibney said:


> Its rather self-explanatory, people on both sides of the debate (in general, not AAM) are getting somewhat angry and bitter and some people have been saying and writing thing things that they've later regretted.



Thanks for the explanation. I didnt get that from the expression at all. I thought it implied the subject matter was bitter and twisted or that the fact that there was debate at all was bitter and twisted - not that people have been saying and writing things they have regretted.

Any examples of that (in general, not AAM) - cant say Ive noticed it? Ive noticed some heat alright, but thatd be normal given an emotive topic, but I havent particularly noticed any bitterness or regret?


----------



## T McGibney (4 Dec 2012)

truthseeker said:


> I thought it implied the subject matter was bitter and twisted or that the fact that there was debate at all was bitter and twisted.



I can't for the life of me see how I implied either of the above in what was really a throwaway remark.



truthseeker said:


> Any examples of that (in general, not AAM) - cant say Ive noticed it?  Ive noticed some heat alright, but thatd be normal given an emotive  topic, but I havent particularly noticed any bitterness or  regret?



http://www.independent.ie/national-news/radio-producer-under-fire-for-vulgar-tweet-3312129.html


----------



## truthseeker (4 Dec 2012)

T McGibney said:


> news/radio-producer-under-fire-for-vulgar-tweet-3312129.html[/url]



I dont think one person being vulgar is worth referring to a debate as "bitter and twisted" when there have been hundreds of perfectly polite exchanges on the subject.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Dec 2012)

truthseeker said:


> I dont think one person being vulgar is worth referring to a debate as "bitter and twisted" when there have been hundreds of perfectly polite exchanges on the subject.



Have you nothing better to worry about? If it suits you, I'll delete my earlier remark. Happy now?


----------



## Bronte (4 Dec 2012)

Well I'm not happy Tommy that you deleted it because it was directed at me.  And I'd prefer if you put it right back.  

But I know you for a while, in as much as one can on here, so I know you were not being nasty to me.  

You were upset about that other ladies story, and I too am upset about her story, but it is in the public domain so we are entitled to comment on it don't you think?  I'm not seeking to make any political capital.  All I care about is the rights of women and their babies and the medical care they are should be entitled to.


----------



## T McGibney (4 Dec 2012)

Bronte said:


> Well I'm not happy Tommy that you deleted it because it was directed at me.  And I'd prefer if you put it right back.



Hi B 

Relax, if you read my post, first of all I didn't delete anything.  Secondly my 'bitter and twisted' comment was not directed at you. Of all people, even though I don't know you personally I respect you far too much to ever direct any such comment at you.

If you can't find evidence of 'bitter and twisted' debate on abortion, try Twitter.

And finally, I think the case of the lady whose inquest took place recently should not be cited in the abortion debate as there was no evidence from the coverage of her inquest of any relevance therein, nor have any comments to that effect been made by her family. Of course you are entitled to say what you like about her death, but in deference to her grieving family, I would suggest that respectful silence might just be an appropriate response.


----------



## michaelm (4 Dec 2012)

Bronte said:


> All I care about is the rights of women and their babies and the medical care they are should be entitled to.


So say we all.


----------



## Bronte (4 Dec 2012)

T McGibney said:


> If you can't find evidence of 'bitter and twisted' debate on abortion, try Twitter.
> 
> .


 
OMG no way can I follow Twitter.  Have a look at my PC computer thread to see how bad I am, my whole family were in stitches at that thread. 

Let's leave Twitter out of this debate on AAM.  But if you could show me a link I'll give it a go.   

I have noted your point about this particular woman's story, but stories like that are part of the debate, in my opinion, that's why I brought it up.  

(and BTW thank you for your kind words)


----------



## truthseeker (4 Dec 2012)

T McGibney said:


> Have you nothing better to worry about? If it suits you, I'll delete my earlier remark. Happy now?



I just didnt understand what you meant, no need to get defensive about it, I asked what it meant, you explained it, all is well.


----------

