Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Irish abortion laws

999 replies

crumpet · 23/05/2015 16:38

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?

OP posts:
SabrinnaOfDystopia · 26/05/2015 09:50

"mud slinging" - what, like accusing people of being name-changers?

GeorgeYeatsAutomaticWriter · 26/05/2015 09:53

Have you ever name-changed, bumbley?

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 09:53

No, I saw that George but it didn't answer the question. Eventually you acknowledged that it wasn't directly related as you had previously said.

Bath time - well it's a false accusation and yes, when it was mentioned on a thread previously I actually had to go away and google them. Clearly a major fan! :)

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 09:56

She is a name changer. That's true. Not mud slinging at all. Well, not in the same league as accusing people of being coached in debate by SPUC Hmm but hey ho.

Can we move on now? Haven't we derailed enough? Is this another thread that's going to become all about my opinions with me defending myself against loads of false accusations and then being accused of making it the 'bumbley show'. Can I point out that I called this on the last page - do I get a prize for my ability to foresee this?

SabrinnaOfDystopia · 26/05/2015 09:57

Plus your posts here allude to more than just a pro-life viewpoint. We have a denial that the abortion laws or article 8 were a key factor in Savita's death. You glossed over the very important question of women being asked for consent prior to medical interventions.

So, on the one hand, you want us to believe that Savita died purely from medical negligence - and that legislation had no part in it. On the other, you want women to trust the medical professionals to do the best for her/the baby? And if that means medical intervention without asking for consent - well, it's all fine- because women surely want the best for their babies?

^That is what you have argued so far.

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 09:57

Yes, George - why?

BertrandRussell · 26/05/2015 09:58

For the avoidance of doubt. I am a name changer, but not specifically for this thread. Bumbleymummy has refused to state her position on another controversial topic where she uses the same faux reasonable tactic. Which, thinking about it goes very well with her charming, unthreatening username.

SabrinnaOfDystopia · 26/05/2015 09:59

Also you can believe whole-heartedly that medical professionals do want the very best for you/your baby - but they still have to ask you consent before medical procedures.

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 10:00

Sabrina - I didn't gloss over it. I went away and read the actual case report for the Kerry case instead of just assuming things from a blog article which turned out to be incorrect - the blogger posted a subsequent article to correct it.

I didn't say that they shouldn't ask for consent - I said at the start that if was bad practice. I just asked what that case had to do with the 8th because people were blaming the judgement on it.

GeorgeYeatsAutomaticWriter · 26/05/2015 10:00

I said in that first post 'interpretation of the 8th directly influenced the High Court judgement'. I'm sorry if that was too complicated a statement for you to understand, and I'm glad I was able to clear up my position for you.

GeorgeYeatsAutomaticWriter · 26/05/2015 10:01

I'm just wondering why you are criticising BertrandRussell for name changing when you have name-changed yourself. Rather hypocritical, no?

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 10:04

Im not criticising her for name changing. Just pointing out that I know she has, know who she is and will not be engaging with her because her attitude stinks.

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 10:08

Correction to my previous post - Blaming the judgement on it (which actually wasn't the judgement - incorrectly presented in the blog and subsequently corrected by the blogger)

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 10:11

So George your 'high court judgement' wasn't actually a judgement and no, it wasn't directly influenced by the 8th

SabrinnaOfDystopia · 26/05/2015 10:12

And this is what you do, bumbley - right there. Twisty turny.

This is why people ask you to state your position clearly- because your posts are weasley and unclear.

GeorgeYeatsAutomaticWriter · 26/05/2015 10:16

It was a High Court judgement. Not sure why you are saying it was not. My opinion is that the 8th reflects and has given legal & constitutional weight to a culture of misogyny in Irish obstetrics, which can be traced in this judgement

(NB the patient said she was not asked about ARM and did not consent to it; the midwife said she did consent - the judge found that the patient did consent based on testimony from the 2 concerned).

duplodon · 26/05/2015 10:18

Bathtime you seem insistent on construing posts in the most negative way possible. I don't think Ireland is 'backward' and I just don't see a need to categorise anything or anyone undergoing massive change as 'backward' or to need to say that the opposite of 'backward' is some sort of progressive enlightenment. I think like all societies there are areas where progress is accepted and areas it is resisted that reflect our unique collective history.

And.,, there is defensiveness here in many sectors. I think it's highly possible that it may not exist in all settings and there may be a public private sector divide and also an urban rural divide, but I do think that if you underestimate just how triggering it is for many Irish people to be told from outside (to include people who have lived abroad and come back) that everything we do is wrong, you are being a little bit deluded. I think even my post triggered this in you, as yours did in me.

We are a nation of huge contrasts undergoing rapid, huge social change AND I believe our progress has been lightening fast, but that it is wholly unreasonable to expect a country of our size to not be impacted at all by centuries of colonial rule after a very short time frame.

I see it as mindful, uncritical, accepting awareness of the fact that we are developing rapidly, that things are changing constantly and that many of us have a learning history of feeling inferior relative to England. Might be gone in another generation or maybe two, might take longer but I think pretending our context has no influence or impact on our current laws or people's attitudes to them seems to be denying a lot of who we are.

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 10:25

That's not 'twisty turny' Sabrina- you accused me of glossing over something that j went away and read up about and then accused me of saying women shouldn't be asked for consent which I didn't do.

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 10:25

George, can you clarify what you think the high court judgement was.

duplodon · 26/05/2015 10:30

As for my friend, she self identifies as Irish having been born in London to Irish parents who emigrated in the late 60's. She hasn't been in Ireland apart from on weekend trips to Temple Bar since 1995. Do you consider her Irish with as much right to say we are backward as any Irish person and to expect people living in Ireland to agree?

duplodon · 26/05/2015 10:34

Also Bathtime, find me one nation in the world who likes its neighbours or former colonisers to say it is backward and that its laws are shit and need to be changed, or who would enjoy being categorised as mawkish and self congratulatory at a moment of national pride. Are they all so averse to criticism because they are shitty little countries or, you know, do human beings in general find negativity about their cultural practices aversive?

SabrinnaOfDystopia · 26/05/2015 10:51

You certainly alluded to that last night, bumbley - saying 'surely if it's for the benefit of the baby..." and "well she hadn't said NO" - and writing it off as 'bad practice' - that is glossing over it.

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 11:03

Out of context.

Surely if it's for the benefit of the baby was in response to Leedy's? comment about the 8th preventing choice in labour. I was pointing out that the only time it will impact on choice is if the baby's life was in danger and I couldn't see a woman choosing to put her baby's life at risk at a point where it was a life or death situation.

The 'hadn't said No' comment was in direct response to someone who said that she had refused consent. This wasn't the case. The question was whether or not she had been asked for consent. The midwife said she had asked for consent, the woman said she hadn't and the judge found that consent had been sought. He did not say that a midwife doesn't need to ask for consent which was what was implied by some of the quotes from the blog and which the blogger subsequently corrected. The blogger had originally gotten her information from a newspaper which had quoted the judge out of context.

SabrinnaOfDystopia · 26/05/2015 11:14

Out of context? We can all read what you wrote. Just another example of you not not owning what you've posted, bumbley. We can all read back what you posted last night - and it was a glossing over.

Own it, or don't post it. Like someone else said - you're obfuscating.

I'm not the only poster who has said this - you've got many posters on here all saying the same thing.

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 11:23

Well, clearly you can read it but you're misinterpreting it (perhaps deliberately?) I didn't say that they shouldn't seek consent (neither did the judge) and I made it very clear several times that I was asking about the impact on choice in labour in relation to the 8th. I know that there was a lot of x-posting at the time and there were a few things going on at once (me answering leedy and duplo/george) so perhaps that added to the confusion but I really didn't say what you think.

I have a feeling you'll just think what you like anyway.