Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

doctoremma

I have to interject here, just to clarify some of the points being made about chemo during pregnancy. This is in case anyone outside is reading this and is terrified by what's being said. However, I'm not blind to which side this information will used to support and I can only hope said person doesn't begin to make his own overblown claims or twist the meaning of what I say.

There is a lot of evidence from cohort studies published in high-impact medical journals that chemo during pregnancy doesn't have to be problematic, and certainly shouldn't evoke imagery of babies burning or poisoned to death. There are little quirks in the figures depending on the type of cancer being treated, which obviously dictates the cocktail of chemo drugs used - for example, the treatment for haematological malignancies is worse for the growing baby than the treatment for breast cancer. There is definitely a risk of serious problems for chemo delivered during the first trimester, but the growing consensus is that second and third trimester chemo doesn't necessarily affect the development of the child.

Now, I say "necessarily" because women receiving chemo are far more likely to deliver prematurely (some 60% deliver early). This entails its own risks and observations of lower IQ etc in babies born to Mums who had chemo are correlated with those born pre-term. The strategy for treatment management is therefore not to delay chemo but to medically manage the risk of premature birth.

My thoughts on ^^^ are that if you NEED chemo during the first trimester, an abortion would be appropriate under any medical necessity guidelines*. If you wish to keep the pregnancy and can possibly delay your treatment past 12 weeks, you will be in a reasonable position.

*I hesitate to write that though, as I would maintain that at 12 weeks, a fetus cannot feel anything, so it's difficult for anyone to argue that it can suffer.

doctoremma

I would also clarify that ^^^ simply describes the pharmacological issues with having chemo during pregnancy and says nothing about whether women could want to have an abortion in order to mentally and physically focus on their own recovery.

doctoremma

Also, I can provide links to medical articles but unlikely that many of you would be able to access?

Sarky

Students or college staff might, the universities tend to have deals with journals to allow viewing from certain IPs. I'd be interested in browsing them, anyway.

Silvio.Dante

B0jangles wrote: »

Would you be happy to accept the risk that the treatment would not end the pregnancy, that it would go to term and result in a baby with severe and painful abnormalities caused by the treatment?

I could do a Bannashidhe and say "I would accept the opinion of Medical experts".

But I have the courage of my convictions to say yes, Life is precious and should be givne every opportunity to live, like you, I, people Downs Syndrome, born with no limbs, Michael D, the Daly/Bacik duo etc...

Silvio.Dante

eviltwin wrote: »

Why delay it though? Why not just allow her to have the abortion so she can focus on her treatment. The baby is not going to survive anyway so why put the woman through that. Do you not think her chances of recovery from her illness would be set back by having to wait for nature to take its course.

Where have I said delay anything..?

B0jangles

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I could do a Bannashidhe and say "I would accept the opinion of Medical experts".

But I have the courage of my convictions to say yes, Life is precious and should be givne every opportunity to live, like you, I, people Downs Syndrome, born with no limbs, Michael D, the Daly/Bacik duo etc...

That is horrific, and the fact that you can still crack jokes about such a possibility is unbelievable.

Silvio.Dante

Morag wrote: »

Not just so she can focus but so her body can, being pregnant means she is immune compromised and that her bodies basic resources are being funneled away from herself to sustain the pregnancy.

For her to have the best chances of responding to the treatment and going into remission then she would have not be pregnant.

Ah there you are...:)

Would you support a woman's right to an abortion for other reasons apart from threats to the her health, fatal fetal abnormalities, rape/incest and pregnancies beyond which the abortion pill would be effective..?

Silvio.Dante

old hippy wrote: »

But nobody is killing babies. It's a medical procedure, that is all.

Hmmm...:rolleyes:

doctoremma

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(11)70363-1/fulltext

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/02February/Pages/chemotherapy-cancer-during-pregnancy.aspx (NHS summary of above paper)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470204504014664

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470204504015062 (opinion on above paper)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959804905009378

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305737208000042

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

X is about an immediate threat to the life of the mother so yes, I would.

If you believe pregnant women should be given cancer treatment despite the risk of that treatment aborting the fetus - so do you.

Would you support aboritons being available for women who have no health problems..?

Silvio.Dante

B0jangles wrote: »

That is horrific, and the fact that you can still crack jokes about such a possibility is unbelievable.

Intentionally killing unborn babies in no laughing matter...

Sarky

And yet you joke about it. You're a monster.

Flier

I think the point about Chemo / Radiation or indeed any medical treatments during pregnancy is this:

There may be an option that is safe or more safe for the foetus, there may not.
There may the option to delay treatment, without undue further risk to the woman.
The vast majority of pregnancies in this scenario are very much wanted, and it is often a very difficult decision for a woman to make.
The woman, together with her doctor and support network, should have the choice to make the best decision for her at the time. And if that decision is to have an abortion, she should be supported and not branded a murderer and callous baby killer for putting her own life first.

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I could do a Bannashidhe and say "I would accept the opinion of Medical experts".

But I have the courage of my convictions to say yes, Life is precious and should be givne every opportunity to live, like you, I, people Downs Syndrome, born with no limbs, Michael D, the Daly/Bacik duo etc...

I beg your Pardon???

Such hypocrisy is stunning given that you are the one who was advocating the need to make the Medical guideline law, but now you have the audacity to sneer at me because I said I would accept the opinion of medical experts???


Bannasidhe has the courage of her convictions too - they just don't happen to include causing women, girls, children or fetus' unnecessary suffering, which is far more than you can say.

fatmammycat

Flier wrote: »

I think the point about Chemo / Radiation or indeed any medical treatments during pregnancy is this:

There may be an option that is safe or more safe for the foetus, there may not.
There may the option to delay treatment, without undue further risk to the woman.
The vast majority of pregnancies in this scenario are very much wanted, and it is often a very difficult decision for a woman to make.
The woman, together with her doctor and support network, should have to choice to make the best decision for her at the time. And if that decision is to have an abortion, she should be supported and not branded a murderer and callous baby killer for putting her own life first.

Agreed, and that decision is nobody's business bar the woman and whom ever involved. But there again, I support abortion on demand, and not just for medical reasons.

oldrnwisr

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Would you support aboritons being available for women who have no health problems..?

OK, Silvio, enough already.

What is it exactly that you're trying to accomplish here.

Apart from the post above you've already asked this question three times in this thread here, here and here not to mention having done the same in the Savita thread in Politics here, here and here. How does getting a yes, no or undecided answer to this question help to advance this debate?

Oh, and you may find it easier to use the polls already conducted if this is the only answer you seek. Like this one for example:

Paddy/Power Red C - January 2013

Results

• 29% of voters believed that there should be a constitutional amendment to allow abortion "in any case where the woman requests it".
• 35% supported legislating for the X case allowing for abortions where the life of the mother is at risk, including from suicide.
• 26% supported legislating for the X case but excluding suicide
• 8% believed no legislation at all was necessary

or this one:

Sunday Business Post/Red C Poll - November 2012

"85% of voters would like the government to "Legislate for the X case, which means allowing abortion where the mother's life is threatened, including by suicide", with 10% opposed and 5% undecided. The same poll also found that 82% of voters supported "A constitutional amendment to extend the right to abortion to all cases where the health of the mother is seriously threatened and also in cases of rape", and 36% of voters supported "A constitutional amendment to allow for legal abortion in any case where a woman requests it". In addition, 63% of voters also supported "A constitutional amendment to limit the X case, by excluding a threat of suicide as a grounds for abortion, but still allowing abortion, where the mother's life is threatened outside of suicide"

So again, what purpose does this line of questioning serve other than derailing this debate?

Bannasidhe

doctoremma wrote: »

I have to interject here, just to clarify some of the points being made about chemo during pregnancy. This is in case anyone outside is reading this and is terrified by what's being said. However, I'm not blind to which side this information will used to support and I can only hope said person doesn't begin to make his own overblown claims or twist the meaning of what I say.

There is a lot of evidence from cohort studies published in high-impact medical journals that chemo during pregnancy doesn't have to be problematic, and certainly shouldn't evoke imagery of babies burning or poisoned to death. There are little quirks in the figures depending on the type of cancer being treated, which obviously dictates the cocktail of chemo drugs used - for example, the treatment for haematological malignancies is worse for the growing baby than the treatment for breast cancer. There is definitely a risk of serious problems for chemo delivered during the first trimester, but the growing consensus is that second and third trimester chemo doesn't necessarily affect the development of the child.

Now, I say "necessarily" because women receiving chemo are far more likely to deliver prematurely (some 60% deliver early). This entails its own risks and observations of lower IQ etc in babies born to Mums who had chemo are correlated with those born pre-term. The strategy for treatment management is therefore not to delay chemo but to medically manage the risk of premature birth.

My thoughts on ^^^ are that if you NEED chemo during the first trimester, an abortion would be appropriate under any medical necessity guidelines*. If you wish to keep the pregnancy and can possibly delay your treatment past 12 weeks, you will be in a reasonable position.

*I hesitate to write that though, as I would maintain that at 12 weeks, a fetus cannot feel anything, so it's difficult for anyone to argue that it can suffer.

The problem is that we are dealing with absolutists and their 'thou shalt not harm the teeny baybee in the womb under any circumstances' - and this is the stance they want legally enshrined.

Michelle Harte was denied treatment in CUH for her cancer and an abortion....

A pregnant 16 year old in Dominica was denied treatment for cancer...

Both died.

fatmammycat

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I beg your Pardon???

Such hypocrisy is stunning given that you are the one who was advocating the need to make the Medical guideline law, but now you have the audacity to sneer at me because I said I would accept the opinion of medical experts???


Bannasidhe has the courage of her convictions too - they just don't happen to include causing women, girls, children or fetus' unnecessary suffering, which is far more than you can say.

Bannasidhe, you're wasting your time and good-humour. You're dealing with a zealot. There is no common ground when dealing with a zealot. It's just a waste of time.

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Would you support a woman's right to an abortion for other reasons apart from threats to the her health, fatal fetal abnormalities, rape/incest and pregnancies beyond which the abortion pill would be effective..?

Would you support a woman's right to an abortion due to threats to the her health, fatal fetal abnormalities, rape/incest and pregnancies beyond which the abortion pill would be effective..?

Sarky

Going on the sheer volume of posts, I don't think it would be out of the question to suggest that silvio is trying to convince himself that he's right.

Silvio.Dante

Flier wrote: »

branded a murderer and callous baby killer for putting her own life first.

No one is throwing the M word around here...

Silvio.Dante

oldrnwisr wrote: »

What is it exactly that you're trying to accomplish here.

Seeking to know just where people stand on abortion overall...:)

Who are advocating for X, alone. Who would support abortion for other mwedical reasons, who wuold support abortion being available for non medical reasons.

Would they impose time limits, why those particular limits etc...

Morag

Silvio.Dante you've asked me a few questions, I do hope you will answer mine.


Do you think that contraception is a good thing?
Do you think that life begins at conception?
If so were do you stand on hormonal contraception which may prevent implantion?
Would you support free contraception and visits to health professional in relation to contraception for under 25s?

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Would you support a woman's right to an abortion due to threats to the her health, fatal fetal abnormalities, rape/incest and pregnancies beyond which the abortion pill would be effective..?

No...

doctoremma

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Who are advocating for X, alone. Who would support abortion for other mwedical reasons, who would support abortion being available for non medical reasons.

Would they impose time limits, why those particular limits etc...

The answer to all those questions would be covered by:
Up to 20 weeks, I support abortion on demand. No questions, no reasons necessary.

The 20 week limit is a combination of my knowledge of human development, my definition of personhood and my emotional response (and am fully accepting that the last would hold no sway in a legal/philosophical argument).

And for clarity, I am in the UK, if that tailors any responses you have.

Silvio.Dante

Do you think that contraception is a good thing? Yes


Do you think that life begins at conception? Yes

If so were do you stand on hormonal contraception which may prevent implantion? I haven't a clue.

Would you support free contraception and visits to health professional in relation to contraception for under 25s? Why not.

Now Morag. That wasn't difficult...:)

Would you support a woman's right to an abortion for other reasons apart from threats to the her health, fatal fetal abnormalities, rape/incest and pregnancies beyond which the abortion pill would be effective..?

loveisdivine

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Seeking to know just where people stand on abortion overall...:)

Who are advocating for X, alone. Who would support abortion for other mwedical reasons, who wuold support abortion being available for non medical reasons.

Would they impose time limits, why those particular limits etc...

I would advocate abortion on demand up to a certain number of weeks. Basically the same as the UK.

What exactly would you like to see happen? Your previous posts have left me unsure what it is you actually want to see happen.

oldrnwisr

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Seeking to know just where people stand on abortion overall...:)

Who are advocating for X, alone. Who would support abortion for other mwedical reasons, who wuold support abortion being available for non medical reasons.

Would they impose time limits, why those particular limits etc...

Next time you might answer the entire question Silvio.

In the context of this debate, how does that information, assuming that all those you asked decide to respond, get us any further in deciding whether or not we should legislate for X which after all is the pertinent question.

So once again, what does the position of the contributors of this thread have to do with the overall debate?

MrPudding

Morag wrote: »

Do you think that life begins at conception?

Only when it won't cost the church money.

MrP