Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Options
1…220221223225226…330

Comments

  • Options
    #6662
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Can you reconcile this with your earlier statement, to the effect thatAre there any circumstances in which you feel a woman should be compelled to carry a foetus to full term? Or is your position that a woman who (I'm just trying to use neutral terms - pick others if you prefer) demands that a foetus be surgically removed at (say) 30 weeks is requesting a procedure that shouldn't be termed an abortion?

    It just seems a little contrived. Can you explain what you mean?

    This was asked of the medical experts during the X case hearings in Lennister House.

    It was stated that in the case of a woman and in the final trimester of her pregnancy and no longer wished to be pregnant that the pregnancy could be ended and with the neo natal care being on standby to attend to the newborn.


  • Options
    #6663
    martoman
    Registered Users Posts: 45 ✭martoman


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Though in a minority, there are cases where a woman might decide to have a termination in the later stages: if she discovered the unborn had fatal genetic condition (that was not determined earlier), or where her social circumstances unexpectedly changed (say, her relationship ended, or where she lost her job and was under financial constraints) and she doesn’t feel she’s in a position to bring a child into the world. These are all real possibilities. Should we respect her choice in these circumstances?

    This is what you said in response: “Yes we should. Who are we to judge?” What about these cases?
    eviltwin wrote: »
    Though in a minority, there are cases where a woman might decide to end her newborn baby's life because she discovered the baby had a fatal genetic condition (that was not determined before birth), or where her social circumstances unexpectedly changed (say, her relationship ended as she went into labour, or where she lost her job and was under financial constraints) and she doesn’t feel she’s in a position to nurture and bring up a child. These are all real possibilities. In the case of the healthy child, she could give it up for adoption, but the mother feels this would be too distressing on her and feels termination is a better option. Seeing that some would see these as reasonable grounds for later term abortions, should we also respect her choice in these other circumstances mentioned?

    This is how you respond to the second proposition: “I have to say I find it quite insulting you are even suggesting the above as a viable option for some women. What does it say about your attitude towards women who have had abortions that you think they would be okay killing a newborn.”

    How can you find the former acceptable and the latter unacceptable? Your reaction to both cases was very incredibly different. What is the fundamental difference between the two cases? For me I think both cases are justifiable. It ironic that you question my attitude toward women, when in fact you seem to be less open that me for a women to choose her options. You also seem to imply about me that I see abortion as a trivial matter for women. I never suggested this. My examples, on the contrary, suggested otherwise.


  • Options
    #6664
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Morag wrote: »
    This was asked of the medical experts during the X case hearings in Lennister House.

    It was stated that in the case of a woman and in the final trimester of her pregnancy and no longer wished to be pregnant that the pregnancy could be ended and with the neo natal care being on standby to attend to the newborn.
    I'm afraid I'm still a little unclear - both as to the view you are putting forward, and what you are presenting as the factual situation.

    Is your position that the pro-choice position (as stated in your posted quoted by me above) never includes late term abortion, because a late interruption of a pregnancy - an early delivery, or surgical removal, or whatever term you deem appropriate - should not be termed an abortion?

    Can you link the testimony of the medical experts to the effect that they saw no problem in making it optional for a woman bringing a pregnancy to term in the final trimester? Maybe its absolutely what they said - it just seems a little extraordinary that they'd be advocating such an approach.


  • Options
    #6665
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    anigif_enhanced-buzz-18400-1363706269-32.gif


  • Options
    #6666
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Can you link the testimony of the medical experts to the effect that they saw no problem in making it optional for a woman bringing a pregnancy to term in the final trimester? Maybe its absolutely what they said - it just seems a little extraordinary that they'd be advocating such an approach.

    It was given with in the context of X Case legislation and how they would deal with ending a pregnancy in the last trimester.


    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/x-case-legislation-will-not-lead-to-intentional-killing-1.1070788
    Speaking on the opening day of hearings in the wake of the expert group report on the European Court of Human Rights judgment against Ireland, Dr Rhona Mahony refuted assertions made by anti-abortion campaigners that legislating for the X case would result in “the direct and intentional killing of unborn children”.

    She was responding to a question from Fine Gael TD Terence Flanagan, who asked whether it would be acceptable to carry out a termination of a pregnancy at 24 weeks.

    “Please don’t talk about the ridiculous concept of terminating pregnancies at 24 to 30 weeks,” she said.

    Where a termination of the pregnancy was necessary to save the mother’s life the foetus would be delivered rather than killed in the womb, she said. “Where there is any chance of preserving the life of the baby we will do so...What we are about today is saving women’s lives, not about killing [unborn foetuses].”

    Master of the Rotunda, Sam Coulter-Smith told the committee: “In most situations it is possible to deliver the foetus rather than kill the unborn.”


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6667
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Morag wrote: »
    I will see if I can find it, it was given with in the context of X Case legislation and how they would deal with ending a pregnancy in the last trimester.

    Post 6666. Good show, that woman.


  • Options
    #6668
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Morag wrote: »
    I will see if I can find it, it was given with in the context of X Case legislation and how they would deal with ending a pregnancy in the last trimester.
    Just to be clear, is it this statement?
    http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/HEJ2013010800034

    [Dr. Rhona Mahony:]
    When we extrapolate the extra terminations of pregnancy that we anticipate the numbers are tiny. In my hospital last year we had three cases in which we had to intervene prior to foetal viability because of our concern that a woman would die. There is a tiny number of cases, 30 or 40 is an overestimate. The figure nationally is more likely to be between ten and 20. We never kill a foetus. That is not our aim. Occasionally it is required that we deliver a pregnancy before the baby is viable or capable of surviving in our neonatal intensive care unit. When there is any possibility at all that we can preserve the life of the baby we will do so. We are able to do so from very low gestations, from 23 weeks on and in those cases Members can be very certain that we will make every effort to preserve life.

    In other cases we are required to terminate a pregnancy as part of a treatment of a medical condition because we feel a woman will die. That is not killing the baby. That is simply delivering the baby before it is viable. There is a difference. It is always our wish to preserve life and society should be very reassured about that.

    There is a changing demographic. Older women are becoming pregnant. They have different disorders. They are more likely to have coincidental medical disorders. It is very important that doctors have the flexibility to do their duty with legal protection.
    Now, maybe you have some other statement in mind. But in that testimony, she seems to be talking about the rare situation where, because of some medical issue threatening the mother, it is necessary to terminate the pregnancy. She's simply saying that they'll make every effort to help the baby survive. But she's certainly not talking about adopting a practice whereby any woman, from 23 weeks on, could seek a voluntary termination.

    Now, as I said, maybe you've some other statement in mind. If not, I feel that we're taking an unnecessarily long detour before addressing the point at issue - which is whether you feel there are any circumstances in which a woman should be compelled to bring a birth to full term. (The original background to this being, you'll recall, your statement dismissing any suggestion that late terminations were ever advocated by pro-choice campaigners.)


  • Options
    #6669
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Just to be clear, is it this statement?Now, maybe you have some other statement in mind. But in that testimony, she seems to be talking about the rare situation where, because of some medical issue threatening the mother, it is necessary to terminate the pregnancy. She's simply saying that they'll make every effort to help the baby survive. But she's certainly not talking about adopting a practice whereby any woman, from 23 weeks on, could seek a voluntary termination.

    Now, as I said, maybe you've some other statement in mind. If not, I feel that we're taking an unnecessarily long detour before addressing the point at issue - which is whether you feel there are any circumstances in which a woman should be compelled to bring a birth to full term. (The original background to this being, you'll recall, your statement dismissing any suggestion that late terminations were ever advocated by pro-choice campaigners.)

    Like I said it was in with in the context of the X case hearings, they don't do abortions, they do how ever end the pregnancy.

    I don't agree with enforced pregnancy and I will re state what I said earlier
    Morag wrote: »
    Over my 22 years of pro choice activism I have never meet a single person who was in favour of very late term abortions were the woman and the fetus were both healthy.
    To try and say that is what pro choice people want is an utter red herring.

    There is a difference between a late abortion and an early delivery, the difference being if the unborn will survive.

    Currently we have the issue of the 8th amendment and the 1864 act which means drs who seek to end a pregnancy where the unborn will not survive when the life of the mother is not in immediate critical risk they can be charged with preforming an abortion, which is why women travel to the Uk to see termination for medical reasons, due to fatal fetal abnormalities.

    I would be concerned that a woman would get as far as the 3rd trimester where she and the unborn have both been healthy and then suddenly decide she didn't want to be pregnant, but at that stage, they should have the option to end the pregnancy and have the unborn delivered into neonatal care and terminate their parental rights.


  • Options
    #6670
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Morag wrote: »
    I would be concerned that a woman would get as far as the 3rd trimester where she and the unborn have both been healthy and then suddenly decide she didn't want to be pregnant, but at that stage, they should have the option to end the pregnancy and have the unborn delivered into neonatal care and terminate their parental rights.
    That's grand as a clear statement of your position. But is it fair to say that it's not as pat as that. An early delivery exposes the unborn to significant risks and is massively more expensive than allowing the pregnancy to proceed to full term. I doubt you'd find any responsible health professional who'd advocate such an approach, outside of situations where there was an actual medical need.

    I mean, fair enough, its your position. But I'd suggest that, politically and medically, its as likely to fly as a lead zeppelin.


  • Options
    #6671
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    There is best practice and there is the messiness of life.
    Faced with a woman in the 3rd trimester who will see out an illegal abortion or attempt to preform one herself I think most drs would try and take the path of least harm, which may well be an earlier delivery with the possible complications that will bring. That is in countries which respect women's right to bodily autonomy


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6672
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Morag wrote: »
    There is best practice and there is the messiness of life.
    Yeah, and then there's mental positions that don't make a lot of sense. Does any country actually operate on the basis of inducing an early delivery at 24 weeks as a matter of maternal choice?

    I've checked the forum charter, and my reading suggests that it would not be permitted to assert that another poster is a space cadet. However, the expectation that the rest of the community should, as a matter of course, accept the resultant costs of an early delivery, and allow natural parents to just walk away from any problems, would not survive for the full duration of an interstellar training mission.


  • Options
    #6673
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Yeah, and then there's mental positions that don't make a lot of sense. Does any country actually operate on the basis of inducing an early delivery at 24 weeks as a matter of maternal choice?

    I've checked the forum charter, and my reading suggests that it would not be permitted to assert that another poster is a space cadet. However, the expectation that the rest of the community should, as a matter of course, accept the resultant costs of an early delivery, and allow natural parents to just walk away from any problems, would not survive for the full duration of an interstellar training mission.

    Indeed it would also be my understanding that it is against the forum charter to call another poster a space cadet - as it would also be to say that a particular poster seems to be engaging in some form of intellectual masturbation designed to stroke their own ego.

    These alleged outbreaks of Onanism manifest as a condescending tendency to launch off into pseudo clever dicky tangents riddled with misogynistic mansplaining under (and over) tones where they set up strawmen and then cast scorn on female who attempts to answer said strawmen in a reasonable manner. So none of us shall say anything like that.


  • Options
    #6674
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Well I'm just hugely confused right now.:confused:


  • Options
    #6675
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    These alleged outbreaks of Onanism manifest as a condescending tendency to launch off into pseudo clever dicky tangents riddled with misogynistic mansplaining under (and over) tones where they set up strawmen and then cast scorn on female who attempts to answer said strawmen in a reasonable manner. So none of us shall say anything like that.

    1764659_o.gif


  • Options
    #6676
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Sarky wrote: »
    Well I'm just hugely confused right now.:confused:
    Ah, it's not confusing. Just a little manic.

    Essentially, Morag is proposing that (say) up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, women would have access to abortion. Which is grand, so far as it goes. After 24 weeks - which is when there's a possibility that the foetus could survive in an incubator - she'd envisage that women would be able to request an early delivery, rather than an abortion, and abrogate any parental obligations with respect to the foetus, should it turn out to be viable.

    Pre-term deliveries of this kind pose substantial risks to the health of the foetus. Essentially, Morag is leaping from the statement "after 24 weeks, the foetus has an increasing chance of survival" to the contention "after 24 weeks, the foetus can be delivered without any implications for anyone". No responsible health professional would advocate this second view - in fact, they'd say that early delivery should only be attempted where there is a medical reason.

    [In fairness, I'm sticking in the approximate number of weeks - but it would have to be something like this; I don't think Morag envisages that a woman requesting a termination at (say) 26 weeks would be told "come back at 36 weeks and I'll see what I can do", because that would involve 10 weeks of "forced pregnancy".]

    Now, this line of Morag's does allow advocacy the principle of bodily integrity of the woman to be unsullied by any practical, real world considerations. But it effectively means that she's saying that the benefit of weeks of maternal bodily integrity outweigh the costs of a significant risk of lifelong chronic illness for the child. And maybe that's valid - after all, it depends on a value judgment. But it's certainly a line that the Iona Institute would love to see advocated by a pro-choice campaign, particularly if it flopped out of someone saying "we've never advocated late term abortions".


  • Options
    #6677
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    Again you are leaving out the part of my statement re the health of the woman and of the fetus in regards to the early ending of pregnancies which have reached the 3rd trimester.

    As for terminating of parental rights in the cases of ill newborns, it happens.
    We have a system which allows for parents to place the child in care and terminate parental rights.

    And really at this stage any comments from you about my posts being " unsullied by any practical, real world considerations" are quite farcical. Why I even think you may have something in your own eye, might even be a beam.


  • Options
    #6678
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Morag wrote: »
    Again you are leaving out the part of my statement re the health of the woman and of the fetus in regards to the early ending of pregnancies which have reached the 3rd trimester.
    Can you clarify what it is you feel is being left out? Are you saying that a request for an early delivery would be refused if this was not in the interests of the foetus? Are you saying that a woman would be "forced" to continue with the pregnancy in that situation?
    Morag wrote: »
    As for terminating of parental rights in the cases of ill newborns, it happens.
    There's a complete difference between providing for extreme cases and actually providing it as an option. This is pretty much identical to the difference between the situations outlined by Dr Rhona Mahony in her presentation, where she explained how medically necessary early deliveries are managed, to your contention that early delivery should be an entitlement.
    Morag wrote: »
    And really at this stage any comments from you about my posts being " unsullied by any practical, real world considerations" are quite farcical. Why I even think you may have something in your own eye, might even be a beam.
    I said at the outset I expected this would be a tortuous discussion, so the path we're on is no surprise to me. But, yes, the posts you've made so far are unrealistic in precisely the respects that I've highlighted.


  • Options
    #6679
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Ah, it's not confusing. Just a little manic.

    No, it's confusing. What the f*ck are you on about?


  • Options
    #6680
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Sarky wrote: »
    No, it's confusing. What the f*ck are you on about?
    Exactly what I've said. Come up with a more focussed question, and I'm sure any unnecessary confusion can be dispelled.


  • Options
    #6681
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    martoman wrote: »
    Here is a recent essay I wrote on the ethics of abortion: http://martoman.blogspot.ie/2013/03/the-ethics-of-ending-innocent-human-life.html?view=magazine

    I'm sorry I don't have time to read BS.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6682
    martoman
    Registered Users Posts: 45 ✭martoman


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    I'm sorry I don't have time to read BS.

    Why do you think it's BS? I'm curious to know.


  • Options
    #6683
    Lingua Franca
    Registered Users Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭Lingua Franca


    What's the travel situation like from Ireland today? I know it's virtually impossible from Northern Ireland.

    And in other news: North Dakota passes personhood act, doctors disgusted


  • Options
    #6684
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Lingua Franca wrote: »
    What's the travel situation like from Ireland today? I know it's virtually impossible from Northern Ireland.

    Most UK airports open but flights seriously delayed and high risk of further snow means airports may close again.

    Severe weather warnings in place across much of the UK.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/warnings/#?tab=map&map=Warnings&zoom=5&lon=-3.50&lat=55.50&fcTime=1363996800

    I know it was a rhetorical question but sometimes one needs to hammer these things home.


  • Options
    #6685
    Obliq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,371 ✭✭✭Obliq


    Lingua Franca wrote: »
    And in other news: North Dakota passes personhood act, doctors disgusted


    Nice. :mad: I like this comment:
    "We're clearly not the brightest bulbs in the bunch if we take a legal medical procedure and try and make it illegal," she said.
    "Not being bright" never seems to get in the way of right-wing politics in the US tho, eh?


  • Options
    #6686
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I know it was a rhetorical question but sometimes one needs to hammer these things home.
    What point are you under the impression that you are hammering home? Do you feel that current weather conditions are likely to cause some change in the political climate?


  • Options
    #6687
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    What point are you under the impression that you are hammering home? Do you feel that current weather conditions are likely to cause some change in the political climate?

    Stop being obtuse.


  • Options
    #6688
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Nodin wrote: »
    Stop being obtuse.
    Can I stop laughing? Because you're not helping.


  • Options
    #6689
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    What point are you under the impression that you are hammering home? Do you feel that current weather conditions are likely to cause some change in the political climate?

    The shocking cost of calor gas.


  • Options
    #6690
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    http://www.policymic.com/articles/30925/un-report-classifies-lack-of-access-to-abortion-as-torture

    UN Report Classifies Lack Of Access to Abortion as "Torture"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6691
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,427 ✭✭✭Morag


    http://feministire.wordpress.com/2013/03/28/the-logistics-of-arranging-abortions/


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement