Irish abortion laws

[crumpet]

In all the publicity about the gay marriage referendum Aibu to wonder why there hasn't been mention of the abortion laws? Have I missed discussion on this?

I don't think it was directly related to the 8th. I think the judgement was influenced by the 8th. As I've stated upthread, I think the procedure was influenced by the misogynistic culture in Irish obstetrics.

Can you answer my question now? Are you ok with that judgment - that consent, let alone informed consent, is not necessary if a medical profession decides otherwise?

So to add to George's question, do you think it's okay that a woman labour is less capable of giving informed consent than an actively psychotic person and should be afforded less legal protection than someone in this state? That's what this case law suggests.

There seems to be some confusion here. I'm not saying that they shouldn't seek consent - I said at the start that I thought this was poor practice. I just couldn't see why some people were saying this case was to do with the 8th when it wasn't acting in the best interest of the foetus/prioritising the foetus over the mother.

It now seems to be that it's not directly due to the 8th but all part of the 'misogynistic culture' in Ireland.

OK. So to be clear, do you agree with the judgement - that consent need not be sought or obtained when treating pregnant women? A simple yes or no would do.

Ok, I'm always a bit reluctant to base my opinions on blogs/newspaper articles so I'm just in the process of reading about the case.

Just thought you might want to know that the writer of the original blog that duplo linked to wrote a subsequent post clarifying that the newspapers had used this comment "The midwife was the person entitled, authorised and qualified to make the decision, the judge said.”" out of context. (surprise surprise) He wasn't saying that the woman had no right to make the decision over her own birth which is what you all seem to be so upset about. Justice Ryan made that statement in response to the plaintiff’s claim that the midwife in question should have consulted a senior obstetrician before performing ARM.

Still haven't answered the question, bumbley

George, were you not asking me if I agreed with this: "The midwife was the person entitled, authorised and qualified to make the decision, the judge said." from the blogpost?

I've just explained that the judge didn't actually say that in the context that has been suggested here. He was not saying that the woman herself can not make a decision about her birth or that the midwife is entitled to make that decision over her.

In England the case law says women in labour can take their own decisions (even if that is birthing totally alone and even if the baby dies). I found that hugely comforting when I gave birth.

Bumbleymummy- are you not prepared to say where you stand on abortion?

Previous conversations I have had with bumbleymummy would indicate that she is anti-choice. Also not always keen on giving a straight answer...

I am looking forward to the day we can remove a baby from a woman and implant it in a man or surrogate of man's choice if the man wants the baby and the woman doesn't. Then we will start to move to fairness. Technically that day will come.

"Implant it in a... surrogate of man's choice"?! What a fucking weird and creepy thing to say.

Where is the surrogates' will and agency in that scenario? Is the surrogate a woman, or some kind of farm animal, or what?

duplodon - just reading back I think that you maybe got confused about what judgement was made in the Kerry hospital case. You quoted this from the blog article and I think you thought it came from the judgement:

"This is about the eighth:

"Despite all this, there was some slight reassurance that a birthing woman’s right to consent and informed refusal was recognised at all in a National Consent Policy, despite these limitations. The Consent Policy stating a pregnant woman could consent or refuse treatment unless refusal “would put the life of a viable foetus at risk”. "

This was just a comment that the blogger was making about consent - it didn't from the judgement. The judgement made no reference to the 8th.

Lotus, that's a bit odd. So you think we're discriminated against by nature itself?

Also strange being the only one being asked to 'declare their position' on things.

First part applies to George too - did you think that's what the judgement was?

There's no need to ask people who are being very clear about their position what their position is.

If you object to being asked, maybe give it a rest with the:

"oh no, that situation that couldn't have happened legally in a country where women's human rights are recognised in law has nothing at all to do with the amendment that formally removes those rights from women in Ireland. It's just bad practice/medical malpractice/a few bad apples/a little misunderstanding/the wind was in the wrong direction/Bosco did it."

You, like the pro-life zealots that got this abomination of an amendment inserted into the foundational legal document of the state, are being dishonest.

I would have thought it was fairly obvious Bathtime.

Not sure what you think is dishonest. I asked people to explain why what you were saying was actually directly related to the 8th. I eventually got "not directly related, just part of the 'misogynist culture' " Don't get pissed off and defensive just because people ask questions that you can't give an answer to.

Hang on, where exactly did someone tell you that the treatment of pregnant women in Ireland is "not directly related to the eighth, just part of misogynist culture"?

Leedy - In relation to this case we're discussing about Kerry hospital. George's post today at 20:14.

Your entire contribution to this thread, all innocent disbelief and baffled confusion, is dishonest.

You are a hardline pro-lifer. You don't give a fuck about women and you will defend the 8th at all costs because for you the 2nd class status it imposes on women is not an unintended consequence, but the point of the whole exercise.

Just like the lying bastards who duped the Irish people into voting "against abortion" in a country where abortion was already illegal and deliberately brought in a foetal personhood law that would bring about the X case, and Savita Halappanavar, and all the other revolting, shameful cases since.

People warned in 1983 that those things would happen. And the pro-lifers said "oh no, no, it will be all fine. This is just about preventing abortion on demand being imposed on Ireland."

They were lying.

As discussed previously, Savita died because of medical negligence - even pro choice people have said that.

You've come across as very aggressive on this thread. Other posters, while obviously feeling very strongly about their opinions (which differ to mine), have at least been able to discuss things calmly and in a civilised manner. You should try it sometime.

You aren't discussing this in a civilised manner, so why should I?

Disagreeing with you doesn't make my manner 'uncivilised'. We're all entitled to our opinions.

I'm sure most of us would be perfectly willing to state our position. I am pro choice. I would personally not have an abortion unless the foetus had a condition incompatible with life, or unless the pregnancy was likely to kill me^. But I do not feel that I have any right to impose these restrictions on other women, who should have the right to decide what happens to their own bodies. That is what being pro choice means.