Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

wisdom win

Jernal wrote: »

Got any stats to back this up? If abortions are taking place regularly then there should be a record of these.

I havent got the exact figures it came up when talking to a friend who is a doctor and the fact that Savita is the only death which could have been prevented by an abortion, and in that case it was found that there should have been one, so it was dowm to malpractice by the doctors looking after her.

Sarky

Your doctor friend might want to brush up on the history of the 8th amendment. There have been deaths. There'd be more if the fundies had their way and prevented women from going to the UK.

drkpower

wisdom win wrote: »

In the Savita case it was medical misadventure which means she would have been saved if it wasnt for the doctors f*cking up..

That is not what medical misadventure means, and the expert evidence given to the inquest found exactly the opposite; that she would only have been saved had an abortion been permitted on Monday or Tuesday.

The medical errors did not materially affect the outcome.

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

Your doctor friend might want to brush up on the history of the 8th amendment. There have been deaths. There'd be more if the fundies had their way and prevented women from going to the UK.

Must not ask for a link. . .must not ask for a link. . .
must not ask for a link





Gah!
Linky?

lazygal

wisdom win wrote: »

I havent got the exact figures it came up when talking to a friend who is a doctor and the fact that Savita is the only death which could have been prevented by an abortion, and in that case it was found that there should have been one, so it was dowm to malpractice by the doctors looking after her.

A 'friend'. I have a 'friend' who says the exact opposite.

I can also make up fake friends when engaging in a debate on a forum.

Sarky

Jernal wrote: »

Must not ask for a link. . .must not ask for a link. . .
must not ask for a link

Already linked in this thread. You did read this thread, right?

kylith

wisdom win wrote: »

No because in order to be not pregnant one would have to kill the unborn baby. i.e take a human life. Thats like saying I dont want to look after a sick parent so why can't we just kill them?

No, it isn't. You're confusing an actual human being with a functioning brain, capable of making their own decisions and surviving independently with that of a foetus with no fully functioning brain, and no capability to make their own decisions or surviving independently.

WHY DOES WHAT A FOETUS MIGHT POTENTIALLY WANT TRUMP WHAT AN ACTUAL LIVING, BREATHING, THINKING WOMAN ACTUALLY WANTS? Why do you think it's acceptable to condemn a woman to go through a life changing, and potentially life threatening, pregnancy when she doesn't want to?

wisdom win wrote: »

WOW, the level of misinformation in the pro-life campo is mindboggling. The womans health is the primary concern and abortions take place regularly all over the country when there is any risk to the womans life.

Bollocks it does. As the law now stands there has to be a substantial risk to the woman's life, as opposed to her health for a termination to take place. It is my opinion that 'when she's in actual risk of dying' is too late to be effecting treatment.

wisdom win wrote: »

In the Savita case it was medical misadventure which means she would have been saved if it wasnt for the doctors f*cking up.

I just hate how all the pro-choice group is using the death of an innocent womans to push their agendas and using her to spread their views.

I think you'll find that you're the first one who brought her up in quite a while. I certainly didn't mention her in the quote you posted.

Turtwig

lazygal wrote: »

I can also make up fake friends when engaging in a debate on a forum.

But that would be dishonesty and we're not in the habit of implying however subtly that a person may be dishonest.

lazygal

Jernal wrote: »

But that would be dishonesty and we're not in the habit of implying however subtly that a person may be dishonest.

Mea culpa.

wisdom win

So you agree with forced pregnancy and childbirth? Do you agree with the woman also being forced to raise the child?

Of course I dont agree with forced pregnancy nor do I claim to have any answers, my point is that the the unborn child is a human and so should be entitled to the basic human rights of everyone else. I also believe that if you are having sex then you should be aware of the possible consequences and use protection (I know this doesn't always work).

Have you had a baby in Ireland recently? Not one mother I know who's given birth within the past year felt like their wishes were paramount. I know women who had their waters broken without consent, refused episiotomies but were given them anyway, no anomaly scan done so they had no idea if there were any medical issues with the baby.

I agree the medical sector in this country is an absolute joke and is at a completely unacceptable level my point is that abortions do take place to save the mothers life with Savita being the only exception (which was found to be medical misadventure and another example of the medical system failing)

If you don't want an abortion don't have one

I would usually agree with this but in the case of abortion I see it as humans losing life. Its like saying hey if I want to kill a certain race or homosexuals cause they make me uncomfortable and if you dont agree with it you just dont kill them.

lazygal

wisdom win wrote: »

I would usually agree with this but in the case of abortion I see it as humans losing life. Its like saying hey if I want to kill a certain race or homosexuals cause they make me uncomfortable and if you dont agree with it you just dont kill them.

No, its not. A foetus is not the same as a grown person. That's why in the event of someone killing a pregnant woman there aren't two murder charges, only one. The foetus I'm currently gestating is not the same as the living, breathing child I care for every day and its laughable that think they are the same.

You can't ban abortion because it makes you uncomfortable and you don't agree with it. Just don't have one - but don't tell others they can't have one either.

kylith

wisdom win wrote: »

Of course I dont agree with forced pregnancy nor do I claim to have any answers, my point is that the the unborn child is a human and so should be entitled to the basic human rights of everyone else. I also believe that if you are having sex then you should be aware of the possible consequences and use protection (I know this doesn't always work).

So, if you don't believe in forced pregnancy, but you don't believe that a woman should have the right to end an unwanted pregnancy, what exactly would you suggest be done?

wisdom win wrote: »

I would usually agree with this but in the case of abortion I see it as humans losing life. Its like saying hey if I want to kill a certain race or homosexuals cause they make me uncomfortable and if you dont agree with it you just dont kill them.

Again, you're confusing adults with functioning brains and organs with foetuses without functioning brains and organs. The two are not comparable in any way.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

lazygal wrote: »

A foetus is not the same as a grown person.

Grand, and posts up to this have followed the predictable pattern up to this point. Isn't the point that 'not the same' doesn't mean 'counts for absolutely nothing compared to'. Many folk feel the foetus is due some recognition.Pragmatically, that's acknowledge in places that have far more liberal laws. As explored already, the UK law actually doesn't allow for abortion simply on grounds of a woman's choice. However perfunctory, it actually does require there to be some medical reason. Similarly, laws typically state a time period after which abortion is prohibited - a recognition that, at some point, the law should protect the foetus. I think the discussion tend to flip between extremes, where there's actually nothing but grey.

kylith

I wholeheartedly agree with such time limits. If an abortion is to be carried out then it should be as early in the pregnancy as possible, which is one of the reasons I'm so angry with all this 'panel of experts' talk; it will cause delays.

But to say 'an abortion is like killing an adult' is unacceptable, because they are simply not the same thing.

oldrnwisr

wisdom win wrote: »

I agree the medical sector in this country is an absolute joke and is at a completely unacceptable level my point is that abortions do take place to save the mothers life with Savita being the only exception

Not really.

FYI

Sheila Hodgers

One year after the operation, Sheila Hodgers became pregnant. Since the anti-cancer drugs she was taking could harm the foetus, she was stopped from taking them. Hodgers began experiencing severe back pains and could hardly stand. Her husband urged the hospital to induce her pregnancy or perform a Caesarian but they refused as it would damage the foetus.

...

On 17 March 1983, Hodgers gave premature birth in extreme agony to a baby girl who immediately died. Hodgers died two days later from cancer in her neck, spine, legs, liver and ribs.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Sarky wrote: »

Already linked in this thread. You did read this thread, right?

The thread's over 7,000 posts at this stage. I missed it. Is this the list of three mention on the AH thread? If so, it's not exactly passing scrutiny.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84209595&postcount=388

Bannasidhe

wisdom win wrote: »

No because in order to be not pregnant one would have to kill the unborn baby. i.e take a human life. Thats like saying I dont want to look after a sick parent so why can't we just kill them?



WOW, the level of misinformation in the pro-life campo is mindboggling. The womans health is the primary concern and abortions take place regularly all over the country when there is any risk to the womans life. In the Savita case it was medical misadventure which means she would have been saved if it wasnt for the doctors f*cking up.

I just hate how all the pro-choice group is using the death of an innocent womans to push their agendas and using her to spread their views.

Wow - the misinformation there is mind boggling.

'any' risk is a whole different thing to 'real and substantial risk'.

If a woman's health is the primary concern - why are pregnant women who have some forms of cancer refused treatment as it will damage the fetus? Why was Savita denied an abortion if her health was the primary concern?

Wisdom win - how ironic a username....

Stark

"Any risk" would mean abortions on demand (yeah I know, I hate that term too) since being pregnant pretty much always carries a higher risk to life and health than not being pregnant.

lazygal

Stark wrote: »

"Any risk" would mean abortions on demand (yeah I know, I hate that term too) since being pregnant pretty much always carries a higher risk to life and health than not being pregnant.

Can we please call it 'abortion on request'? Thanks.

Turtwig

lazygal wrote: »

Can we please call it 'abortion on request'? Thanks.

It doesn't have the same emotional vibes though.

lazygal

Jernal wrote: »

It doesn't have the same emotional vibes though.

I hate the 'on demand' element - its ONLY applied to medical abortions. We don't refer to any other medical procedure on demand - its an elective procedure requested by the patient.

Turtwig

RTE Anti-Catholic wrote:

Irish psychiatrists have said they will not participate in any compulsory assessment of pregnant women who have suicidal ideation and are seeking an abortion. The College of Psychiatry in Ireland said today its members will not be the country's "social police".
The president of the representative body for psychiatrists said that forcing vulnerable women to undergo mandatory psychiatric assessments of up to 12 people was abusive. Speaking to RTÉ News, Dr Anthony McCarthy said compelling psychiatrists to take part in such a system was abusing their profession, which is supposed to offer comfort, compassion and support to people in vulnerable situations.
Dr McCarthy said the Government has to deal with the abortion issue and legislate adequately for it, and should not pass the social control of a situation onto psychiatrists. He said it was the position of the college that they would not take part in such panels of forced assessments.
Dr McCarthy said psychiatrists would be happy to continue to provide second opinions, as is normal professional practice, but would not "collude" in any process of formalised compulsory assessment panels. Psychiatrists would not act as judges, tasked with assessing whether a woman was feeling suicidal, he said. He said asking psychiatrists to test the truth of women's stories was extremely abusive.

Source.

Loafing Oaf

Jernal wrote: »

Source.

Does this mean legislating for X ay all is now unworkable (assuming suicide has to be part of the legislation)?

Could it be that the only way out of this legal morass now is a referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment (which IMO was rendered inevitable in any case by Dr Boylan's testimony at the Savita Inquest)?

lazygal

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Does this mean legislating for X ay all is now unworkable (assuming suicide has to be part of the legislation)?

Could it be that the only way out of this legal morass now is a referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment (which IMO was rendered inevitable in any case by Dr Boylan's testimony at the Savita Inquest)?

I think it'll delay the Bill. There's going to have to be further 'consultation' with groups like the psychiatrists on how the law will work in practice.

Turtwig

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Does this mean legislating for X ay all is now unworkable (assuming suicide has to be part of the legislation)?

Could it be that the only way out of this legal morass now is a referendum to repeal the Eighth Amendment (which IMO was rendered inevitable in any case by Dr Boylan's testimony at the Savita Inquest)?

Presumably so, but it more probably means the government have now a legit excuse to dig their heels in and be even more stubborn than they were already about the impending legislation. Or we could see another glaring demonstration of idiocy and watch them push on anyway, who knows?

Loafing Oaf

Jernal wrote: »

Presumably so, but it more probably means the government have now a legit excuse to dig their heels in and be even more stubborn than they were already about the impending legislation. Or we could see another glaring demonstration of idiocy and watch them push on anyway, who knows?

Yes, Enda Kenny's every instinct in situations like this would be to hunker down and muddle through, even if he could see the potential payoff of taking a bold step like a referendum...

Knasher

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Does this mean legislating for X ay all is now unworkable (assuming suicide has to be part of the legislation)?

Legislating for X is still workable in legal terms. It just means that requiring psychiatrists isn't going to be politically tenable, which was the direction that the government seemed to be heading in. As I understand the English system, abortion requires a medical reason before it is legal, but that requirement is so easy to meet that in practical terms it qualifies as abortion on request.

The Constitution doesn't outline how exactly the X case needs to be legislated for. So they could set the bar such that the declaration of suicidal thoughts would be enough to qualify, or set it so high that nobody would really qualify. The difficult part of this legislation for the government is finding a middle ground that is both broad enough to garner the pro-choice votes and narrow enough to garner the pro-life ones. The declaration from the psychiatrists simple shifts the current proposals further away from the pro-choice side, but there may still be some middle ground that the government can find to pass some legislation (especially when they can stack the deck with the party whip). What that legislation will actually mean is practical terms is an open question.

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

Still an awful process and presumably designed to allow business as usual, women going to the UK.

To me, it seems designed to allow the support of the FG parliamentary party and to a great extent, hang the women concerned.

Bannasidhe

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/04/24/talk-anti-choice-like-a-boss/


Is it a spoof? Is it real?

It's so hard to tell....

lazygal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/04/24/talk-anti-choice-like-a-boss/


Is it a spoof? Is it real?

It's so hard to tell....

I've definitely seen and heard a lot of those tactics being used by the likes of YD, the Life Institute (some woman Cora was on the Late Debate last night spouting a lot of them) and Precious Life, deflect, turn the question to what you want to say and smile/frown as needed, depending on what's being discussed.