To think men have no right to stand outside abortion clinics and do this.

[QuestioningStuff]

Posted before about my pregnancy. I am having a termination today. This is not a decision I've made lightly.

I've arrived at the clinic and there is a middle aged man and his young teen son standing outside with camp chairs and flasks. Putting up awful pictures and signs. Trying to hand out leaflets.

I think women who do this are also scum but how on earth could a man think he has any right to do this? Turn up at a place where women are at their most scared and vulnerable and try to bully them?

It's really really upset me. I hate them so much right now.

I want to go and tell them exactly what I think of them but don't think that would be helpful at this time.

I think actually this thread has been positive for the most part. those with a different opinion. have made themselves sound ridiculous with no evidence to back up any if the stories.

everyone else has been supportive of the op and others on this thread who have been through the same thing. I hope that people reading feel better for knowing the majority of sane people support a woman's right to choose.

op I hope you are recovering ok. There's a lot of support here for you.

To be clear. Yes I do know a little girl born with a single ventricle, congenital heart defect. Her parents refer to it as half a heart. It is an abnormality referred to as incompatible with life. Look it up. Thanks.

In terms of evidence, all we've heard is that the presence of people outside clinics makes people feel intimidated, not that they are actually engaged in any harassment.

Posters here cannot disprove either the good work done by decent people like those at GCN and impute bad motives.

Have a look at the Maria Stops abortion website for some concrete examples of the kind of stuff they do.

Disagreeing with the moral status of an unborn child doesn't make one a heinous person or even a religious one. Interested parties might want to look at Feminists for Life.

And to whoever is capitalising on the tragic death of Savita, she begged not for an abortion but for early retrieval of her dying baby.

Usually conservative management is the protocol in these situations, the inquest found that Ireland's abortion laws had no impact on what happened. What she needed was prompt treatment for sepsis in which early diagnoses is crucial and the first few hours critical.

And disagreement with some of the ideas expressed does not equate to lack of support for the OP.

Abortion is a horrible experience for anyone and I wish that more women were spared.

the inquest found that Ireland's abortion laws had no impact on what happened.

That is not correct. I've read the inquest, and they found that Ireland's abortion laws did have an impact on Savita's medical treatment. London obstetricians recorded that they would have terminated in this case, and WHO report that best medical practice in this situation is a termination - this was denied Savita purely because she was in Ireland.

And disagreement with some of the ideas expressed does not equate to lack of support for the OP.

Abortion is a horrible experience for anyone and I wish that more women were spared.

The OP has chosen to terminate the pregnancy. For her own reasons. Telling her you wish she had been 'spared' is not support.

"she begged not for an abortion but for early retrieval of her dying baby"

Which would technically count as an abortion. Removal of non-viable foetus (or, if you will, "early retrieval of dying baby") that still has a heartbeat == illegal in Ireland. And the enquiry into her death stated that "failure to offer all management options to the patient" was a factor.

(And they failed to offer all management options why? Anyone? Bueller? "Chilling effect"? Rings any bells?)

If I have to hear one more anti-choicer twisting and weaseling that poor woman's story and the inquest details to argue that it had NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION NO NO NO JUST SEPSIS THE EXPERTS SAID SO SAFEST PLACE IN THE WORLD TO BE PREGNANT SHINING PRO-LIFE LIGHT OF EUROPE, I'll throw something.

Also do you get handouts or something ("Then tell them that the hospital followed the recommended protocol of conservative management...")? bumbleymummy came out with an almost identical argument on another thread, and no, I don't think it's because you're both right.

Gileswithachainsaw Tue 23-Jun-15 22:20:51

"adoption isn't better than abortion either."

I really think that the surviving child would strongly beg to differ with that assertion, Giles.

In terms of evidence, all we've heard is that the presence of people outside clinics makes people feel intimidated, not that they are actually engaged in any harassment.

How would you define harassment then? I would call it actions designed to intimidate or, indeed, any kind of unwelcome and unwanted intrusion.

There's plenty of evidence showing protestors with cameras filming women going in and out (the protestors claim they wear these for their own protection) , of protestors hurling abuse link. And if this isn't harassment, I don't know what is.

Questionning

I am truly sorry that you have found this thread upsetting. I hope that nothing I have said in defence of the right to choose has added to that upset. I hope you have someone with you and family support, and that you are resting. You are very brave to have even come back to this thread.

FWIW, I think it's noticeable that the two main posters who have posted long defences of the protestors have only ever posted on this thread. Which means that either:

1. They registered on MN just to post on this thread. Why, oh why, would you happen across this thread as your start on MN. Unless perhaps you were pointed in this direction by someone else. Or it's a big coincidence. Twice.

1. They are regulars who have name changed because they don't have the confidence to post under their normal name. Because they know that they are so out of step with most people's opinions that they are worried about the effect that it would have on their normal name persona. No doubt they would say that that is because they are in the right and the majority aren't. I disagree.

If you ignore those who have attempted to 'out talk' the thread by sheer volume of words, the vast majority of people have one of two opinions:

a. There should be an exclusion zone; or

b. That, much as they dislike the protestors, unfortunately they think democracy (though not morality) should allow them to protest.

That is the vast majority on your side that this is horrible, vile, counter productive, self-congratulatory behaviour. Don't let volume of words overpower that.

Take care

Yeah irish I'm. Sure knowing their mother never wanted them or the reason they went hungry as kids or mummy over dosed several times due to poor health was because their mum.was scared off by protesters at her most vulnerable time, is a laugh a minute.

If adoption didn't impact on a child, even a good adoption, then explain why when allocating schools adopted children are top of the list.

Those who support an exclusion zone, do you also support an exclusion zone for protesters around labs where animal experimentation is carried out, so animal rights protesters can't hand leaflets to the workforce or stand outside with posters of animal experiments?

After all, the protest might upset some of the more vulnerable employees.

I can't see how you can support an exclusion zone for one and not the other. Unless you want an exclusion zone for protests you don't agree with, and no exclusion zone for protests you do agree with. Which then begs the question, who gets to decide which protests are right and which are wrong?

Abortion is a horrible experience for anyone and I wish that more women were spared.

Actually, Fizzy, it isn't necessarily 'horrible'. Many women feel nothing but relief. My friend who terminated her anencephalic fetus said it gave her and her partner a feeling of control and that she felt she was doing the best for the baby. Perhaps you would like all women to feel traumatised by it - part of the anti-choice rhetoric involves telling women they will be plagued by regrets - but the truth is that many aren't traumatised and feel 'spared' from having to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

People should really look into the care system in the uk and how many kids it completely fails before advocating it as an alternative to abortion.

But they don't, because pro-lifers strangely stop giving a fuck about the kids once they have actually been born.

Fizzy you say abortion is upsetting for anyone. It's not though. Lots of women are fine with it. I had an abortion, I'm fine, no regrets, no tears.
It's so very patronising to want to save us from a choice that many of us are fine with.

I've been on here for a few years now, it isn't a new profile.

Re Savita. She died of an uncommonly bad case of sepsis www.irishtimes.com/news/health/expert-tells-inquest-savita-had-worst-case-of-sepsis-he-had-seen-in-30-years-1.1364882

The inquest made 9 recommendations none of which pertained to lack of abortion. Perhaps lots of people say the same thing because they have insight or experience of protocols for this type of thing?

Here's the inquest recommendations. www.thejournal.ie/savita-inquest-the-coroners-9-recommendations-876864-Apr2013/

And fizzy a lot of women have an abortion just because they simply don't want a child. And that is there right.

Fizzy - Apologies, when I looked on my phone it only gave me this thread. I see that there are in fact three others.

Oh, in terms of someone who has written at length about termination not being sad, or devastating, but just a relief, Caitlin Moran is a perspective that the pro-lifers don't often give credence to existing. And she's written a LOT of words on this.

I really think that the surviving child would strongly beg to differ with that assertion, Giles.

Well I think that that would depend on the circumstances of the surviving child. Oh wait I forgot, all unwanted foetuses who 'survive' abortion get adopted into luffly fluffy families who were desperate for a baby of their own who just wasn't in God's plan. Either that or their birth mother lays eyes on them for the first time and that immediate rush of love takes over and years down the line as they are frolicking in a field together somewhere the mother looks into her child's eyes and thinks to herself 'how could I have ever thought about murdering you?'

Apart the fact that your argument about a surviving child makes no sense anyway, since given a foetus has no self awareness, they would never have known about this 'wonderful' life they could have had anyway.

Oswin. That's just a silly thing to say, I'm a mum like many of us on here. Who are you to claim that I don't give a stuff about actual born children?

This projection is silly & unhelpful. One minute I am told off for being glib by mentioning that some women are ok with abortions, the next I am told that I want people to suffer.

Err no. I just know that I and several of my friends and relatives had abortions which with hindsight we regret. I'd like fewer women to be in this position.

Support seems to equate to endorsement of a decision. No-one is in a position to judge the OP or any abortive woman, but we can say look, I'm sorry this happened without actually offering any further opinion. Some women do feel comfortable with their choice, others not so.

I am utterly comfortable with using cancer drugs tested on animals despite being an animal lover. I eat meat too. For that reason I choose to ignore the gory photos or block them out. Though I'd prefer my kids didn't see them.

Fizzyrubbish -

From the report: "The investigation team is satisfied that concerns about the law, whether clear or not, impacted on the exercise of clinical professional judgement. The investigation team did not have the remit to attempt to review this aspect of Irish Law."

fizzyrubbish Wed 24-Jun-15 01:10:38
OP I am genuinely sorry that you are hurting. For this reason I won't comment further. Take care.

Wow. You kept that up for about 8 hours.

"abortive woman"?

The professional team misunderstood application of the law which would have allowed for a life-saving abortion. So it wasn't the law but their understanding of it. This has subsequently been amended by the 2013 act.

Caitlin Moran is one of the more interesting pro-choice perspectives.

I wonder how many people are dying to chip in agree with me but are feeling intimidated? A pro-life perspective is a taboo in today's society. I almost didn't contribute given the aggressive nature of some of the posts and to be honest you have to be in a strong emotional state to contribute a pro-life view because as soon as you do, you get jumped on and people assume all sorts of motives and say some pretty unkind stuff about you, your motives, lack of compassion and so forth.

I'm just here to try to reasonably as I can, put the other side across and perhaps make some third parties re-consider or revise their view of these evil anti-choicers.