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
Comments
-
-
Eamon O'DWYER is the pro lifers go to expert, he wrote this a while back.
http://www.fiamc.org/fiamc/03events/0209seoul/texts3/01odwyer/odwyer.htmAccordingly, the People by Referendum amended the Constitution to give specific protection to the unborn, by inserting a new clause, Article 40. 3. 3. which stated --- "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right." The electorate endorsed the Referendum by a majority of more than 2 to 1 (67% to 33% of the votes cast). It is only right to acknowledge the great support of the medical profession in securing its passage. It was confidently believed that this Constitutional Amendment would guarantee protection for the unborn human in the future.
Unfortunately, not so --- Nine years later, a girl of 14, pregnant after consensual intercourse with a grown man, a case of unlawful carnal knowledge, was injuncted by the High Court against travelling to the United Kingdom for an abortion. An appeal to the Supreme Court, on the grounds of threatened suicide, was upheld, the Court by a majority of four to one, lifting the injunction and, in a judgment (since known as the X-case judgement), which most legal experts consider to be flawed, holding that abortion was lawful in the State where it was probable that continuation of the pregnancy posed a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother. Suicide, it held, was such a risk. Nor did the Court place any limit on the stage in pregnancy at which an abortion might be carried out.
This decision, described by the Catholic Hierarchy as a "miscarriage of justice" was greeted with dismay, and almost disbelief by pro-life people throughout the country who rightly believed that the Constitution, as amended, gave complete protection to the unborn.
The Government too was concerned, in particular, that the threat of suicide was to be a justification for legal abortion. Accordingly, it proposed a further Constitutional amendment designed to remove the threat of suicide --- "It shall be unlawful to terminate the life of an unborn unless such termination is necessary to save the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother where there is an illness or disorder of the mother giving rise to a real and substantial risk to her life, not being a risk of self-destruction." The electorate rejected the proposal by a 2 to 1 majority, although it accepted Constitutional Amendments giving a right to "information relating to services lawfully available in another state" and "freedom of travel between the State and another state."
Subsequently, the High Court held abortion to be lawful, where there was a threat of suicide, in another case involving a young girl who was pregnant following rape. The fact that there have been only two abortions carried out in the State since the X-case is due to the stance adopted by the Irish Medical Council, which, as I stated earlier, is the body which regulates and disciplines the medical profession in Ireland. A doctor in Ireland must be registered with the Medical Council in order to practice the profession.
So lets give him his full title,
Eamon O'DWYER, LLB, FRCPI, FRCOG
Professor, emeritus, of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
National University of Ireland, Galway
He wasn't just a consultant the taught and trained other drs and had a hand in creating the teaching practices and policies. :mad:0 -
Something is seriously wrong somewhere if he thinks that the words 'consensual intercourse with a grown man' and 'girl of 14' can belong in the same sentence.
The Dublin Airport cap is damaging the economy of Ireland as a whole, and must be scrapped forthwith.
0 -
They remind me of the old Iraqi information minister with the incredible audacity of the bullsh*t they come out with. I may just have to fire up the shooping equipment.0
-
Eamon O'DWYER is the pro lifers go to expert, he wrote this a while back.
http://www.fiamc.org/fiamc/03events/0209seoul/texts3/01odwyer/odwyer.htm
So lets give him his full title,
Eamon O'DWYER, LLB, FRCPI, FRCOG
Professor, emeritus, of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
National University of Ireland, Galway
He wasn't just a consultant the taught and trained other drs and had a hand in creating the teaching practices and policies. :mad:
"As you see, in many ways, Ireland needs help! Perhaps we require another St. Patrick to reconvert us to proper Christian values?"
No catholic ethos there!0 -
Advertisement
-
So, would you be happy with abortion permissible right up until the point of birth at nine months?
"Happy with" are not words I'd use at all, so no. As I said in a later post, I was being stupidly abrupt, based on my annoyance about people trying to determine the point where "right to life" occurs in the unborn, when to be honest with you, women decide that for themselves all the time, but go to the UK with their decision.
If abortion was legal here, in the same way as it is in the UK, I assume there would sometimes be extraordinary circumstances where parents and medical professionals would agree that the humanely carried out death of a near term baby would be preferable to that baby undergoing the birth process and a few hours or days of appalling quality of life.
Here is the UK standard, and I agree with this:
Under UK law, an abortion can usually only be carried out during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy as long as certain criteria are met (see below).
The Abortion Act 1967 covers the UK mainland (England, Scotland and Wales) but not Northern Ireland. The law states that:
1.Abortions must be carried out in a hospital or a specialist licensed clinic
2. Two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy
There are also a number of rarer situations when the law states an abortion may be carried out after 24 weeks. These include:
1. If it is necessary to save the woman's life
2. To prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman
3. If there is substantial risk that if the child were born, s/he would have physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped
Generally, an abortion should be carried out as early in the pregnancy as possible, ideally before 12 weeks.0 -
Here's the link to primetime last night. I could kiss Susan McKay today.
http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10089183/0 -
"Happy with" are not words I'd use at all, so no. As I said in a later post, I was being stupidly abrupt, based on my annoyance about people trying to determine the point where "right to life" occurs in the unborn, when to be honest with you, women decide that for themselves all the time, but go to the UK with their decision.
If abortion was legal here, in the same way as it is in the UK, I assume there would sometimes be extraordinary circumstances where parents and medical professionals would agree that the humanely carried out death of a near term baby would be preferable to that baby undergoing the birth process and a few hours or days of appalling quality of life.
Here is the UK standard, and I agree with this:
Under UK law, an abortion can usually only be carried out during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy as long as certain criteria are met (see below).
The Abortion Act 1967 covers the UK mainland (England, Scotland and Wales) but not Northern Ireland. The law states that:
1.Abortions must be carried out in a hospital or a specialist licensed clinic
2. Two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy
There are also a number of rarer situations when the law states an abortion may be carried out after 24 weeks. These include:
1. If it is necessary to save the woman's life
2. To prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman
3. If there is substantial risk that if the child were born, s/he would have physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped
Generally, an abortion should be carried out as early in the pregnancy as possible, ideally before 12 weeks.
I would be happy with a similar abortion law in Ireland.
The law in the UK seems very mindful of the women's needs. As it should be.0 -
0
-
Eamon O'DWYER is the pro lifers go to expert, he wrote this a while back.
http://www.fiamc.org/fiamc/03events/0209seoul/texts3/01odwyer/odwyer.htm
So lets give him his full title,
Eamon O'DWYER, LLB, FRCPI, FRCOG
Professor, emeritus, of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
National University of Ireland, Galway
He wasn't just a consultant the taught and trained other drs and had a hand in creating the teaching practices and policies. :mad:
Is he still a practicing doctor and does he practice in Galway University Hospital?0 -
Advertisement
-
Eamon O'DWYER is the pro lifers go to expert, he wrote this a while back.
http://www.fiamc.org/fiamc/03events/0209seoul/texts3/01odwyer/odwyer.htm
So lets give him his full title,
Eamon O'DWYER, LLB, FRCPI, FRCOG
Professor, emeritus, of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
National University of Ireland, Galway
He wasn't just a consultant the taught and trained other drs and had a hand in creating the teaching practices and policies. :mad:
If ever there was a piece which necessitated the use of the Picard double facepalm...0 -
Eamon O'DWYER is the pro lifers go to expert, he wrote this a while back.
http://www.fiamc.org/fiamc/03events/0209seoul/texts3/01odwyer/odwyer.htm
So lets give him his full title,
Eamon O'DWYER, LLB, FRCPI, FRCOG
Professor, emeritus, of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
National University of Ireland, Galway
He wasn't just a consultant the taught and trained other drs and had a hand in creating the teaching practices and policies. :mad:
Just to clarify the link between the unsolicited robo-calls and Eamon O'Dwyer for people who haven't caught this anywhere else yet:
"A number of people have complained after receiving unsolicited calls regarding abortion in Ireland tonight. The calls, which were first mentioned on Twitter earlier this evening, claim to quote Eamon O’Dwyer, professor emeritus of obstetrics and gynaecology at NUI Galway. The call goes on to say that Irish doctors do not put mothers’ lives at risk and mentions the “tragic loss of a young woman in Galway”, alluding to the case of Savita Halappanavar.
It says that Ireland’s abortion ban does not stop doctors from saving women’s lives and that Ireland is one of the safest places in the world to have a baby. When the number 01-4402522 is called, it also asks the person receiving the message to leave a message on “whether we should continue to protect mother and child under our current pro-life laws, or legislate for abortion based under the British model or any thoughts you have if you are unsure”. People who received the phone calls claim they were asked to press numbers to vote on different subjects."
http://www.krank.ie/category/society/unsolicited-automated-calls-being-made-about-abortion/
And here's the actual call that some of us can expect:
http://soundcloud.com/krank_ie/phone-call
The quality is rubbish, but you'll get the idea. Eamon O'Dwyer is mentioned and quoted. This , btw, contravenes the legal restrictions on such calls:
"As the calls reported on today seem not to fall within the political communication exception- not coming from any recognised political party, candidate or candidate for election- each call complained of could potentially attract an individual criminal conviction and fine. Only calls which prompt a complaint can attract any conviction."
http://www.mcgarrsolicitors.ie/2012/11/21/how-and-why-to-complain-about-an-unwanted-political-automatic-phone-call/0 -
Here's the link to primetime last night. I could kiss Susan McKay today.
http://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/10089183/
Good on her for getting the last word in when it looked like it was being given to that Iona Institute woman.0 -
The Mad Hatter wrote: »Good on her for getting the last word in when it looked like it was being given to that Iona Institute woman.
Yes! I actually cheered at the telly! She was incredibly articulate, mature and quietly spoken - more of her please
0 -
"Happy with" are not words I'd use at all, so no. As I said in a later post, I was being stupidly abrupt, based on my annoyance about people trying to determine the point where "right to life" occurs in the unborn, when to be honest with you, women decide that for themselves all the time, but go to the UK with their decision.
If abortion was legal here, in the same way as it is in the UK, I assume there would sometimes be extraordinary circumstances where parents and medical professionals would agree that the humanely carried out death of a near term baby would be preferable to that baby undergoing the birth process and a few hours or days of appalling quality of life.
Here is the UK standard, and I agree with this:
Under UK law, an abortion can usually only be carried out during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy as long as certain criteria are met (see below).
The Abortion Act 1967 covers the UK mainland (England, Scotland and Wales) but not Northern Ireland. The law states that:
1.Abortions must be carried out in a hospital or a specialist licensed clinic
2. Two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy
There are also a number of rarer situations when the law states an abortion may be carried out after 24 weeks. These include:
1. If it is necessary to save the woman's life
2. To prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman
3. If there is substantial risk that if the child were born, s/he would have physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped
Generally, an abortion should be carried out as early in the pregnancy as possible, ideally before 12 weeks.
Its not often that this late abortion clause is defended. A great deal of people would find fault with the section I bolded. Its abused to allow for abortion for minor and curable aliments such as cleft palates, missing ears and glaucoma. The number of those cases are low compared to Down syndrome. A huge amount have have Down syndrome. That is more serious but there is a huge contradiction in the social progress achieved made for Downs people and otherhand allowing for there eugenic removal. Look at the special Olympics. Their lives are worth living or they are not. There isn't much middle ground here.I have no opinion on the term "pro-choice", and that was not what I posted about.
My post was about the term "pro-life", which is, of course, a lie. The anti-abortion lobby are not "pro" anything. They are interested in stopping things, opposing things, being against things. They give themselves the term "pro life" so as to appear holier-than-thou, morally superior. After all, who could be "anti life"?
The term "life" in this case is meaningless, given that it could, in fact mean a million different things. The term "pro-life" is indicative of the anti abortion side's self image, as pure, above reproach, morally unblemished, with motives that are higher than their opponents could ever imagine. None of which is true, of course. It is indicative of the abuse and twisting of language that the anti abortion campaigners regularly engage in. North Korea is officially termed "The Democratic People's Republic of Korea". That does not mean it is any of those things.
Isn't that just meaningless rhetoric though? Its easy to show that pro-life people are pro certain stuff. They support the unborn's inalienable right to protection. 'Antis' aren't a serious concept. I don't think North Korea is a wise allegory for your sake. Who would be anti-choice? Its full of illusions of liberal freedom. It sounds great but doesn't mean anything. Its just come to be another word for hypocrisy0 -
Letter in today's Irish Times addressing the old 'women who have abortion will end up with mental health problems' rubbish we have heard trotted out a few times.
http://www.irishtimes.com/letters/Sir, – In the context of the current debate, the information presented to the Irish public about the consequences of abortion on a woman’s mental health has been largely misleading and contradicts the consensus international view.
Being suicidal because of an unwanted pregnancy has been deemed in two referendums to be a rationale for an abortion. The mental health, and the possibility of suicide, in women in relation to abortion are therefore of central importance to our national debate and to any legislation/regulation that may be forthcoming. Consequently, some clarification of the scientific findings in relation to mental health and abortion is necessary.
Last year the department of health in the UK funded a project to report on the specific issue of mental health and abortion. The project was commissioned by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and undertaken by the National Collaboration Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH) at the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The project’s remit was to examine all the evidence from the world scientific literature, while maintaining a neutral position about the moral issues. The review (“Induced Abortion and Mental Health”), can be viewed on the NCCMH website and is written in non-medical language accessible to those without specialist training ( www.nccmh.org.uk/publications_SR_abortion_in_MH.html). The key conclusions from this comprehensive review are that up to 95 per cent of abortions are for unplanned pregnancies; and where a pregnancy is unplanned, the mental health outcome for those women who have an abortion is the same as for those women who go on to have a baby.
The evidence from our colleagues in the US is equally clear. The American Psychological Association formed the Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion to examine the scientific research without prejudice. They found “No evidence that having a single abortion causes mental health problems” ( www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion/index.aspx).
In relation to the question of suicide and abortion, there is no evidence that women post-abortion are at an increased risk of suicide (see both reports above), but there is evidence that suicide is associated with unwanted pregnancies in countries where abortion is not available.
In summary, and put simply, the psychiatric evidence indicates that in situations of unplanned pregnancy, women who choose abortion are not increasing their risk of mental ill-health by taking this choice. – Yours, etc,
Prof VERONICA O’KEANE, Clinical Professor in Psychiatry, Trinity College Dublin;
Prof TED DINAN, Professor of Psychiatry, University College Cork;
Prof MARY CANNON, Beaumont Hospital Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland;
Prof AIDEN CORVIN, Professor in Psychiatry, TCD;
Dr EUGENE CASSIDY, Consultant Psychiatrist, University College Hospital, Cork;
Dr EAMONN MOLONEY, Consultant Psychiatrist, University College Hospital, Cork;
Dr YOLANDE FERGUSON, Consultant Psychiatrist,
Tallaght Prof MICHAEL GILL, Professor of Psychiatry, TCD,
C/o Tallaght Hospital, Dublin 24.0 -
aloyisious wrote: »Is he still a practicing doctor and does he practice in Galway University Hospital?
I don't' know the status of his medical license but he is still teaching in Galway University which is attached to the Hospital and had been there for at least the last 30 years, shaping teaching programs, writing policies and he chaired the committee which ran that 'neutral' international symposium on maternal health here in May which pro lifers constantly refer to.
http://www.symposiummaternalhealth.com/about-us/0 -
Its not often that this late abortion clause is defended. A great deal of people would find fault with the section I bolded. Its abused to allow for abortion for minor and curable aliments such as cleft palates, missing ears and glaucoma. The number of those cases are low compared to Down syndrome. A huge amount have have Down syndrome. That is more serious but there is a huge contradiction in the social progress achieved made for Downs people and otherhand allowing for there eugenic removal. Look at the special Olympics. Their lives are worth living or they are not. There isn't much middle ground here.
Have you asked many disabled people? Not all of them agree with you, just as not all of them agree with me. If you think you have a right to speak for them in terms of the choice they might make regarding abortion, you are very much mistaken.
Taken from a beautifully written article by a disabled woman - suggest you read it:
"What is unnerving is how pro-lifers use the fear of “eugenics” and the success of the Paralympics to try to engineer a change in the law on abortion. In a letter to a newspaper this week, the ProLife Alliance used the word “eugenics” twice. This is, of course, a way of associating the prevention of disability with Nazism. It is an easy and lazy argument for pro-lifers to make. "
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/a-disabled-woman-with-an-unwanted-pregnancy-wants-a-choice-too-8160527.html
And another:
"Those trying to ban abortions on disability grounds claim that this is "eugenics", a form of "disability discrimination". And they think a sporting event that displays the most physically able disabled people tells us all we need to know about disability and, while we're at it, a woman's decision-making process. These are campaigners who reduce the nuances of disability to an insulting level, yet speak as if they are saving us from being wiped out, and we should be grateful."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/oct/30/how-prolifers-hijacked-paralympics0 -
Its not often that this late abortion clause is defended. A great deal of people would find fault with the section I bolded. Its abused to allow for abortion for minor and curable aliments such as cleft palates, missing ears and glaucoma. The number of those cases are low compared to Down syndrome. A huge amount have have Down syndrome. That is more serious but there is a huge contradiction in the social progress achieved made for Downs people and otherhand allowing for there eugenic removal. Look at the special Olympics. Their lives are worth living or they are not. There isn't much middle ground here.
I appreciate that subtle concepts are something you struggle with, you are much more comfortable with nice easy black and white, particularly when it aligns nicely with your pre-conceived views, but, supporting or allowing abortions of, for example a foetus with Down Syndrome does not devalue the lives of all people with Downs.
Many people will chose not to abort a Down foetus, and many will chose to abort a Downs, it is, or should be, an individual choice. Now, if a person does decide to abort a downs foetus, or any foetus for that matter, this merely means that for that particular person at that particular time, they believe that the best course of action for them is to abort the foetus. You can argue, if you like, that there is a devaluing taking place, but it should not necessarily be extended to the entire class. So, one woman’s decision to abort a foetus with Downs does not mean the lives of all people with Downs are worthless, that is just silly and patently wrong. It simply means that for that woman at that time, for whatever reason, she decided not to continue with the pregnancy.
I appreciate that making mass generalisations makes your demonisation of those that have abortions, or support the right for a woman to chose to have one, but that does not make it right or valid.
Of course it is very sad that abortions are carried out, I genuinely have great difficulty with them, but I can see how it might seem like the right course of action in particular circumstances. And that is why I support the choice. I have four kids, and my partner and I were very worried when we found the 4th was on the way. Abortion was something that we did discuss, but obviously did not carry through. And yes, I am glad we make the choice we did. I am also glad that we had the choice to make in the first place. Now, had we discovered that one of our children was to be born with a disability I am not so sure we would have 4 kids now. That has nothing to do with me think that disabled people are less than human or their lives are not worth living, though in some cases I think does apply, and I will talk about that below. It has to do with us not being able to cope with that. I am pretty sure that once the baby was born neither my partner or I would have been able to give it up, but I also know that we, as a family, would struggle to cope with a disabled child. I know that our family life would be impacted. And when I say impacted I don’t mean we wouldn’t get to go out as much or have a much fun, I mean that the quality of life we are able to offer our other children would be reduced. For us, and this is not the same for everyone, but unlike you I am not trying to make massive generalisations, it would not be something we could, with good conscious do. It would not be fair on us, it would not be fair on our other children. Of course you will argue “what about fairness for the unborn?” My answer to that is simply this: fairness to the born, for me, takes precedence over fairness for the unborn, and in certain circumstances, I genuinely believe it is the fairest option for the unborn as well.
So, I mentioned that sometime I think lives aren’t worth living, I want to clarify that, and this ties in with the sentence above, that sometime I think abortion is the fairest option for the unborn as well. When test show that a foetus is not viable, that if the pregnancy continues to term and if the baby is born it will be disabled or deformed to the extent that survival is impossible I think it is cruel to continue with the pregnancy. I watch a programme the other night that interviewed a couple that continued with a pregnancy where the child had no kidneys. They knew it would die, and likely suffer, but they continued anyway. They were hoping for a miracle, they were hoping that this foetus would spontaneously develop a pair of kidneys. But mostly, it seems, they needed the baby to be born so they could cope with the loss. I think they are monsters. Where a baby will know nothing but pain and suffering, even if that is for a mercifully short period of time, the baby gains nothing from being born. Nothing. Allowing the parent “closure” is not, in my book, a valid reason for allowing such a pregnancy to continue. It is cruel and unusual. And if you think you have the moral high ground in this debate this is one area where you are sorely wrong.
MrP0 -
But it's not about one woman's decision in a particular case. It's about whether the State recognises that potential disabililty (and not non-viable disability - just substantial disability) is one of the grounds on which an abortion may be lawfully carried out. If we agree that disability is in, but other features (such as gender) are out, then we have made a distinction.So, one woman’s decision to abort a foetus with Downs does not mean the lives of all people with Downs are worthless, that is just silly and patently wrong. It simply means that for that woman at that time, for whatever reason, she decided not to continue with the pregnancy.
I don't have a problem with the UK wording; I just think we shouldn't beat around the bush. It doesn't mean the lives of all people with Downs are worthless; it does mean that we've made a distinction about the identification of Downs before birth. For what it's worth, I think we can expect the Pro Life side to highlight this issue, as there is an active and well-resourced disability sector in Ireland that they'll be attempting to win over and mobilise.0 -
Advertisement
-
Its not often that this late abortion clause is defended. A great deal of people would find fault with the section I bolded. Its abused to allow for abortion for minor and curable aliments such as cleft palates, missing ears and glaucoma. The number of those cases are low compared to Down syndrome. A huge amount have have Down syndrome. That is more serious but there is a huge contradiction in the social progress achieved made for Downs people and otherhand allowing for there eugenic removal. Look at the special Olympics. Their lives are worth living or they are not. There isn't much middle ground here.
... care to back any of this up?
The late abortion clause is frequently defended. We've talked about termination for medical reasons many times before.
I don't know how many people would object to it in the case of severe handicap but you seem seem confident that you know so could you tell us?
Late term abortion is abused to allow abortions for cleft palates, missing ears and glaucoma? I assume you are referring to this set of released figures.The abortions, which included one foetus terminated after the 24-week legal limit, were described as “appalling” by pro-life campaigners, who said disabled babies should be afforded the same right to life as others.
One. Out of 26. In 9 years. One single case of abuse of the system. That's not bad as figures go.
As for Down's syndrome, I'd like to clear something up. Down's syndrome is not all sunshine and puppies and big smiling hugs. People with Down's syndrome have varying degrees of physical and mental disability. It's not all handi-capable success stories shining at the special olympics. Some people with Down's syndrome can hold down a job, live independently and get married. Some will live until their 50s. Some will spend long periods of their short painful lives in hospital. Some will be sent to foster care. Some are so difficult to care for they end up institutionalised for life, and some will be abused in those institutions. All are very vulnerable and open to abuse. To believe that it's all happy, loving innocents who are a blessing and a joy all the time is naive. It's a serious diagnosis with often devastating repercussions.
There are considerations that people take into account when deciding to go ahead with or terminate a Down's syndrome pregnancy. Can I take good care of this child if he or she is severely disabled? How will a disabled child affect our family and finances? Who will take care of them when I'm gone? Will they end up milling around the care system? What will happen to them?
I have respect for anyone who chooses to go ahead with a Down's pregnancy and believe they should be supported. Likewise, I would not look down on someone for thinking they would struggle to cope with a Down's child, or who has seen on a scan that their foetus has congenital heart disease and the bowel outside the body and many other birth defects, that it would be kinder not to have the child. You don't, and want women to have babies that they feel they can't cope with. Is that in the hope that maybe when the baby is born they'll think "How adorable, can't wait to get to the special olympics!"?
We call them the Paralymics now, but whatever you choose to call them, using them as an example of "aren't Down's syndrome people amazing" is sickeningly patronising. We the able bodied don't hold ourselves to the standards of olympians. I'm no Katie Taylor and you're no Usain Bolt I'm sure. Paralympics athletes are still athletes, highly trained and skilled, and having Down's doesn't automatically get to you to the games. In fact, the paralymics actually excludes people with Down's from many events until they can prove that they don't have weakness in a certain vertabrae which is peculiar to people with Down's.
In any event even if people do abort babies with Down's I'm sure we'll still have enough wars, accidents and people with autism to keep you in special olympics competitors for many decades to come.0 -
So, doctors in a Savita case type situation risk prosecution either way; for illegal abortion if they abort unnecessarily, or for gross negligence if they fail to abort when it is necessary.A criminal prosecution? The standard is quite high (gross negligence) but it is possible.
A civil action? Yes, if the risk was truly substantial; and no doubt, there are circumstances that, despite the lack of clarity in the law, that assessment will be straightforward to make.
It may be difficult to prove otherwise; it may not be. But where the potential ramifications for a doctor of being proved to have acted illegally, even a relatively low risk of prosecution is a very serious matter...
IMO one successful prosecution for the latter would do more to protect pregnant women in Ireland than any amount of restating the existing law in legislative form.
To those suggesting we change to a UK style regime; it cannot be done by legislation, it would require constitutional change.
I think you have hit the nail on the head there; many people will give full human rights to a baby once they have set eyes on it. Once the curtain has lifted, as it were. Its probably a primordial instinct kicking in.I am pretty sure that once the baby was born neither my partner or I would have been able to give it up........... Of course you will argue “what about fairness for the unborn?” My answer to that is simply this: fairness to the born, for me, takes precedence over fairness for the unborn, and in certain circumstances, I genuinely believe it is the fairest option for the unborn as well.
MrP
It is easier to deny rights to someone you cannot see. Perhaps that is why in bygone days terrible abuses happened behind closed doors, in institutions and prisons.
One of the consequences of this is that its just hard luck on the parents when something goes wrong during the birth and the baby is starved of oxygen, but survives. It may be born brain damaged and permanently disabled. The lives of the parents will be ruined, but nobody ever seems to suggest infanticide as the obvious solution.
To my mind infanticide under these circumstances, at this stage soon after birth, is at least as justifiable as the late term abortion of a healthy foetus.0 -
Now I've been listening to the varying statements put out by, or attributed to, doctors here in Ireland as to what can be done when they accept that a foetus in a woman's womb is NOT going to live long either in or out of the womb, and there is clearly a risk to the woman's health. Savita's widower has stated that he was told by a doctor the foetus in Savita's womb was NOT going to survive. In that light, there was no legitimate reason for Savita's medical situation to be allowed continue.
If the Medical Council of Ireland is aware of the problems faced by it's members due to the Supreme Court X-case ruling wording (and I don't see how it, or it's members, cannot have been made aware of those problems over the past twenty years) there must surely have been an obligation on it, in it's members best interests, to seek a clearer definition from the Supreme Court as to the difference between a risk to the woman's health, as distinct from a risk to her life, given that the first could lead rapidly to the second.
It seem's to me that the X-case wording is flawed if it lead's medical doctors to have such apposite views as to how they can proceed to medically treat pregnant women who are facing clear pregnancy-related medical health problems.0 -
Not to take away from your point but it needs to be pointed out that the Paralympics and Special Olympics are completely separate events/organisations.Lingua Franca wrote: »We call them the Paralymics now, but whatever you choose to call them, using them as an example of "aren't Down's syndrome people amazing" is sickeningly patronising. We the able bodied don't hold ourselves to the standards of olympians. I'm no Katie Taylor and you're no Usain Bolt I'm sure. Paralympics athletes are still athletes, highly trained and skilled, and having Down's doesn't automatically get to you to the games. In fact, the paralymics actually excludes people with Down's from many events until they can prove that they don't have weakness in a certain vertabrae which is peculiar to people with Down's.0 -
Huh, I did not know that. My mistake. I was going by what I thought my deaf cousin told me earlier this year. And yes, that's an important distinction since it seems the paralympics mostly excludes those with intellectual disabilities.
Do the Special Olympics get media coverage, then? I haven't noticed them televised in a very long time.
And they were set up by the Kennedys too, I see. That's small recompense for what they did to Rosemary.0 -
A number of the pro-lifers are very good looking.
Did you see that barrister on RTE prime time last night (she was also on Frontline)? And did you see the blonde in the audience as well?
Both 8 / 10's. Min.0 -
Well when you bathe daily in the blood of innocents, you're gonna look good.0
-
^^ I'm going to assume someone's hacked into your account, Tim. Because that post is all a bit After Hours, and definitely not the thread to post it in.0
-
I feel unsafe.0
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement