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?

BathtimeFunkste

Yes. you are right, I always struggle to word that correctly which is why I said 'cross water', 'coming to the mainland' would not make sense to someone from Ireland, but 'coming to Britain', well technically that is correct, but sounds as though people from NI are not British, and then you can get in to the territory that not everyone considers themselves British so....

However clumsily I put it, it is a disgrace that women in NI who cannot get ab abortion there (under very strict rules) not only need to travel but also have to pay.

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

Bumbley this is just not true.

Irish abortion law key factor in death of Savita Halappanavar, official report finds.
I'm not going to argue back and forth with you - because frankly everyone can see for themselves your behaviour on this, and every other abortion thread.

But no, pro-choicers do not agree that it was just medical negligence.

Bert, being 'pro-choice' means different things to different people.

Sabrinna, see maryZ's posts earlier in the thread. This has already been discussed at length.

With the greatest respect to MNtters, just because something is discussed at length on a MN thread does not make it a reliable source, bumbley.

An official report into her death is an official and reliable source, and found the abortion laws to be a key factor.

"Bert, being 'pro-choice' means different things to different people."

What does it mean to you?

Yes, Sabrinna, I've read the report and referred to findings from the case a few times. I don't find newspapers to be the best sources of information. It was 'confusion' about the law and not the law itself. They had decided to proceed with induction when Savita's condition deteriorated but there were a series of failings that resulted in her deterioration not being noticed soon enough.

I didn't mention it being previously discussed to suggest that MN was a reliable source- just to say that I really see no need to repeat everything that's already been said about this up thread.

So. Still not prepared to be clear and open about your position, bumbleymummy?

The medical mismanagement was due to interpretation of the abortion laws - the baby's heart was still beating, but had no chance of life. She was denied a termination in Ireland, she wouldn't have been in England.

You know this happens. Mothers are denied terminations of babies with conditions completely incompatible with life - and sometimes even have to endure birth rather than be given a safe termination. This is an assault on women's rights, bodily autonomy and health.

As is any medical intervention without consent. When I had my babies I was asked each and every time before a VE. I had my waters broken - I was asked for my consent first.

I just don't know why there's a need for smoke and mirrors, bumbley.

You seem to be very invested in saying that under no circumstances ever could the 8th be used for any purposes other than... what, exactly? I'm not quite sure how you formulate it?

It certainly seems from your posts that you believe that once a woman is pregnant, unless she is at the point of death, the life of the foetus should come before all consideration of her physical and mental health and wellbeing because well that's just the way God intended it. It seems like you are saying an unborn foetus is more important than any woman carrying it, irregardless of circumstance.

Savita's case was definitely marred by medical mismanagement and racism and I think these may have been the contexts in which the 8th ws interpreted as it was, but the fact remains that it was there to be misinterpreted. Medical staff shouldn't ever be interpreting the law in making or justifying decisions - any decisions. If you have a law that bans certain abortifacient drugs and they're warranted in an entirely different situation, that situation has come about because of the 8th.

Can you really not see that or are you just playing devil's advocate? Also when I have a chance I'll link to the judgement in the Hamilton vs HSE case. You are right, when I read it I can see it didn't mention viability of the foetus BUT it does explicitly deny that there could be a situation where a woman wasn't asked for her consent in performing ARM. Apparently, by virtue of the nurse having an amnihook and putting a sheet under the woman, she should know without being told what was going to happen and she is implying her consent. Of course all birthing women in labour are so sensitive to these changes minute by minute and are aware of all obstetric practices at all times, aren't they?

So if a midwife says she asked you for consent, even if you say she didn't, she probably did. Because hey, you knew what was happening and it was your responsibility to deny consent, not hers to make sure that you were giving it, right? This is uncomfortably close to what was said for years about rape. Always a woman's responsibility...

There are hundreds of instances that having this sort of law is not good for women and if it's not good for women, it's not going to be good for babies. I'm just not sure why you want to keep it as it is. It appears to be that you worry that if it is removed, all the wanton women of Ireland will be queuing up to have abortions on demand to full term. I don't see evidence for that. I do see evidence this law is damaging and dangerous.

It was 'confusion' about the law and not the law itself.

Where do you think the confusion comes from? The law itself. It is notoriously unclear, as has been proven by events and official reports into serious incidents etc.

Sabrinna, do you think Savita's death was inevitable as soon as she was denied an abortion?

bumbley, if the law didn't exist there wouldn't be anything to get confused about, would there?

You can split hairs and read the reports all you like but the law is the problem. Women are worth more than than fetuses.

Obviously this is where you would disagree.

Bumbley - it doesn't matter what I think about Savita. Or you, or any other MNetter. The official report into her death found the interpretations of abortion laws a key factor. Therefore, they were a key factor.

I understand you find this difficult to accept- but that is not my problem.

Do you know what, I don't care if her death might not have been prevented.

What I care about is that a woman who was carrying a much longed for baby was in such a desperate state that she was asking for an abortion and this was not available to her. Can you even imagine, just for a second, what she must have been feeling to even ask for this?

I care about the fact her husband had to watch her go through this in her last days, feeling powerless and helpless knowing he had no way of supporting her in what she was crying out for, which was coming from a place of utter pain and desolation. I care about the fact they were spoken to like they were scum and that this was hidden behind obfuscation about a law that has no place in a modern society.

These things matter. I am no fan of abortion. I would go so far as to say that in terms of myself, I am anti-abortion and I would never have one myself unless I really did think I was at point of death and not having one would leave my three living boys motherless or my husband without a wife. I think abortion is often very anti-woman, more so than the alternatives.

However, having said ALL of that, I don't think my opinions should weigh more than the right of any woman in a desperate situation to make her own choice about what happens to her body, or to experience compassion and kindness in what are usually very difficult and sad circumstances (and yes, that includes the 19 year old who got pregnant by accident on a one night stand or the mother who can't afford another physically, financially or mentally - it doesn't always have to be extreme circumstances).

You don't want women to have abortions, you will never say yes to repeal the 8th, so what more is there to say about it?

bumbley - why not look at it another way; if given an abortion when she asked she almost certainly would've lived. It was the first missed opportunity to save her. Yes, there were more. But that doesn't negate the first.

Indeed, pamplemousse, and duplodon. Couldn't agree more.

I daresay it'll make no headway with bumbley though, who would argue that the sky isn't blue, if it suited her.

I always struggle to word that correctly which is why I said 'cross water'

Yeah, loads of people do.

It's both really confusing and fraught with potential linguistic pitfalls. :)

I'm not particularly sensitive about the language used to describe the islands from a political perspective (I just favour basic accuracy) but I still bristle when Britain is referred to as "the mainland" in relation to Ireland.

You're right, it is an absolute disgrace. And the DUP are trying to make it worse by making it a criminal offence to have an abortion, which isn't quite the horror of the 8th, but it's getting there.

I think it is weird though to criticise the British for not imposing abortion on a population, a significant proportion of which doesn't want it because they identify as Irish Catholics, at the same time as insisting that nobody who lives in Britain (even if they are Irish) is allowed to say that the Irish need to sort out the abortion situation, because that would be colonialist.

I'm a bit baffled by a feminism that has to respect national boundaries. When I lived in Ireland I was glad when feminists from elsewhere recognised the problems with the 8th, and frustrated by "well that's just their culture, none of our business."

Given the amount of American money that went into getting the 8th drafted as it was and passed, I think outside help is going to be absolutely crucial to getting it repealed.

One of the reasons the marriage equality referendum passed was because it took place in a context in which international progressive opinion, not least "across the water" where so many people get a significant part of their media, has been very much of the "gay couples are just like any other couple" persuasion.

You are right, support will be needed - but support is that, and framing it as "you lot are so backward, oppressed and benighted" really isn't supportive.

In the Irish context, nothing bristles quite so much as having someone outside of Ireland (be they Irish or not) saying "oh well in other countries they are SO much better than you". This is part of a postcolonial legacy.

I had to learn this pretty quick when I arrived back with all my"fancy notions" of progressive positive behavioural support in education and the idea that collaboration was the key to better provision in my particular healthcare context. People do NOT like it here if you even HINT that things that are done in England might be better. but will tell you in the same breath that things that are done in England might be better. There's this curious situation where there are people doing things in my field here that have been done in the UK for years and years but if they're done in an Irish context they're described as "innovative" and "unique" but if you report them as having worked in the UK context, people ask you where's the evidence that THE EXACT SAME THING could ever work in Ireland.

Come on, you must know this if you're Irish. I think most of us feel it. I have a lot of ambivalence about Ireland, but nothing riles me more than paternalistic attitudes to Ireland from abroad or being patronised or made to feel lesser. That's just.. part of my learning history. As it is for most Irish people. It played out for a long time on this thread. Tell Irish people they are inferior and you provoke attack, particularly in contexts where it is felt you are making the country "look bad".

And as an example, I have a friend whose parents are Irish. She posted in recent weeks on social media about how backward Ireland was and how shameful ALL these young Irish biddies going on about the horrors of gay unions were and how nothing ever changes. I know she self-identifies as Irish and thinks Irish people will agree with her, and funnily enough if she weren't from London, there is a strong chance that at least some people would - but I suppose it's like that old saying, "it's a shit little country, but it's my shit little country". Very few people respond well to statements that feel shaming, that say that being Irish is shameful or that we should feel bad about who we are. That's sort of common to humanity too, I think. No one wants to be looked down upon, most people will avoid it and may do so by being defensive or attacking.

Lumpy, a woman's life is worth more than a foetus' in the law.

Sabrinna, I know what the report found.

Duplo, I think you've made some good points on this thread and others. I'm not trying to persuade people to agree with me. We're all entitled to our opinions.

Did you see the info about the post from the blog up thread? I hope that reassures you a bit that the judge doesn't think that women can't make decisions. I thought it was very good of the blogger to come back and clarify that when she realised that the newspaper had misled people by taking things out of context.

We are all entitled to our opinions. I just can't work out what yours are really and I don't know why you are so reticent about saying what they are.

Jus, if you look at the failings in her care, I'm not sure that is true. If they realised that she had sepsis and treated her for that then she would probably have lived. Women have died from sepsis in UK hospitals too. This is not something that only happens in Ireland because of the 8th. Why can't we focus on the real issue which was that a women's condition became critical before anyone noticed. That always seems to be pushed aside in favour of the 'if she'd had an abortion...' argument.

Bumbleymummy- please will you state clearly what your position on abortion is? Thank you.

Duplo, I said what they were up thread (I think leedy? asked me). I just couldn't understand why I was being singled out and asked to 'declare my position' or whatever strange statement was used when no one else is. When I do answer these types of questions I tend to get accused of deraing and making it 'the bumbley show' and I'm really not interested in that.

I would have thought it was fairly obvious that I'm definitely more pro-life than pro-choice. Most people here know that from other threads. That doesn't mean that I am affiliated with any pro-life organisations or that I go out picketing outside abortion clinics or attacking doctors who perform abortions or any other accusations that have been thrown at me over the years. This is just my opinion and I realise that a lot of people don't agree with me but hey, I don't agree with theirs either.