Doctors reject abortion motions

Nodin

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Perhaps it was only practical for 75 doctors to be there, given its all the way down in Killarney. You know medics might have other commitments too, like jobs and families.

...out of supposedly over 5,000 members....?

oppenheimer1

Pride Fighter wrote: »

The IMO are a bunch of corrupt, misogynistic bigots. They are a discredited organisation and the doctors need a new vehicle to represent them.

If you're going to make such a big claim please give us examples of corruption, misogyny and bigotry, thanks.

Nodin

padd b1975 wrote: »

Personal reasons.

Thats nice. Others have personal reasons that make them believe that abortion should be available.

opinion guy

padd b1975 wrote: »

Personal reasons.

Oh sorry you are right.

ATTENTION IRELAND - do as padd says because he has personal reasons.

volauvent

C'mon did you see the average age there ( front page of times) They are dinosaurs.
If you think you can draw conclusions about how doctors feel about abortion based on that, you would be pissed off with the medical profession on unfair grounds.
Many many doctors are pro choice.



http://www.irishtimes.com

otto_26

pablomakaveli wrote: »

You have to be a special kind of sadistic c**t to expect a women to carry a baby to term in those circumstances.

Your post says a whole lot more about you

Nodin

otto_26 wrote: »

Your post says a whole lot more about you

How so?

oppenheimer1

Nodin wrote: »

...out of supposedly over 5,000 members....?

Yeah, I've been in sports clubs with huge membership too and only a handful ever turn up for AGM's. Doctors too have lives and other commitments, I can easily understand why so few can give up a can give up a couple of days to attend this in Killarney - the end of the country.

I cared about my own old profession but would never be bothered to attend an AGM because generally I have better things to be doing, like many doctors.

Pompey Magnus

whatdoicare wrote: »

Before this, if I die or my body decides to expel the foetus for whatever reason, the foetus dies and doctors can't do anything to save it.

The record for survival of premature birth is 21 weeks and 5 days, well before when it would be deemed "viable". Is there a specific reason why, if her mother died whilst in medical care, this child could not survive the operation to remove it?

Nodin

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Yeah, I've been in sports clubs with huge membership too and only a handful ever turn up for AGM's. Doctors too have lives and other commitments, I can easily understand why so few can give up a can give up a couple of days to attend this in Killarney - the end of the country. Doctors have to be members of the IMO, its not a choice.

I cared about my own old profession but would never be bothered to attend an AGM because generally I have better things to be doing, like many doctors.

Forgetting about the whole abortion thing, you'd have thought there'd be a higher attendance given the ex-CEO etc. Them membership fees aren't small, afaik.

whatdoicare

Paramite Pie wrote: »

In some parts of the world, doctors have gotten excommunicated for carrying out abortions, even on teenage rape victims. I can't comprehend such heartless opposition.

Well, some doctors are under the impression that that will happen to them here even if the foetus is unviable and we need to clarify in legislation what exactly they can and can't do.
When is it against the law to intervene and when is it illegal not to.

Don't forget, a huge amount of doctors in our system are not from Ireland and they are being left to decide themselves what they think the rules are and Irish doctors are unable to without a doubt say otherwise and are turning to their own beliefs for guidance.

I can't comprehend myself why rape victims in Ireland are forced to continue with a pregnancy, why my maternity hospital won't give me a scan before 20 weeks in case it encourages me to abort my foetus, why an unviable foetus is untouchable until it's last heart beat no matter what the health of the mother - none of this makes sense to me.

As a mother my rights to choose what happens to me and my own body are taken from me from the very moment of conception- this is a very scary reality.

otto_26

missingtime wrote: »

The "Abortions on demand" excuse sickens me as well. I mean do they all think that women are sluts or something. And even if they are sluts, its their decision to go an do something like that. Clueless decision.

How does the "Abortions on demand" excuse sicken you? Do you think Irish women are any different to British women?

If I want to walk up to someone on the street and murder them its my decision to go do something like that.. For people to tell me I'm wrong.... Clueless decisions...:rolleyes:

volauvent

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

. Doctors have to be members of the IMO, its not a choice.

Wrong. Loads of doctors are not in the IMO. The old ones have all the money and are the only ones who can afford to pay 1000-1200 a year for the privilege.

Nodin

otto_26 wrote: »

How does the "Abortions on demand" excuse sicken you? Do you think Irish women are any different to British women?

If I want to walk up to someone on the street and murder them its my decision to go do something like that.. For people to tell me I'm wrong.... Clueless decisions...:rolleyes:

jaysus, you're a terrible tempramental lad.


You missed this, btw....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84006484&postcount=58

otto_26

Nodin wrote: »

How so?

How poster describes people with views that are different to their own..

Turtyturd

otto_26 wrote: »

If I want to walk up to someone on the street and murder them its my decision to go do something like that.. For people to tell me I'm wrong.... Clueless decisions...:rolleyes:

That's not comparable to abortion though.

otto_26

Nodin wrote: »

jaysus, you're a terrible tempramental lad.


You missed this, btw....
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84006484&postcount=58

O I know I am.... Because my beliefs are not in line with yours very temperamental :rolleyes:

otto_26

Turtyturd wrote: »

That's not comparable to abortion though.

In your opinion

Nodin

volauvent wrote: »

Wrong. Loads of doctors are not in the IMO. The old ones have all the money and are the only ones who can afford to pay 1000-1200 a year for the privilege.

Its actually a good bit more afaik.

oppenheimer1

volauvent wrote: »

Wrong. Loads of doctors are not in the IMO. The old ones have all the money and are the only ones who can afford to pay 1000-1200 a year for the privilege.

Apologies, I mixed up their responsibilities with the medical council.

Scruffles

these fossils need to get with the program and stop using religeon to dictate the law.
its very very wrong that irish women have got to come over here,or another country to have an abortion,even moreso wrong when it has happened through rape or taking advantage of someones lack of mental capacity.
women who have made their mind up about abortion will usualy be in mental distress, it shoud be made as less distressing for them as possible not make them go to another country whilst portraying them as a bunch of sluts/whores.

am not seeing a anti women element here,am seeing a religeous bias though,no law shoud be influenced by a faith/belief.

Nodin

otto_26 wrote: »

O I know I am.... Because my beliefs are not in line with yours very temperamental :rolleyes:

yep.

Why does yer mans comment say more about him?

Morag

Nodin wrote: »

It's really hard to fathom how somebody could have a problem with that.

I know it's not like a motion was proposed to allow for the prescribing of the the abortion pill by GPs.

Turtyturd

otto_26 wrote: »

In your opinion

I would have thought in the opinion of anyone with a bit of common sense.:rolleyes:

Nodin

Morag wrote: »

I know it's not like a motion was proposed to allow for the prescribing of the the abortion pill by GPs.

...or for the dread "abortion on demand".....

I mean the one where the foetus is non-viable, ffs....heads out of the holes there lads and lassies.

whatdoicare

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

The record for survival of premature birth is 21 weeks and 5 days, well before when it would be deemed "viable". Is there a specific reason why, if her mother died whilst in medical care, this child could not survive the operation to remove it?

The baby was 17 weeks and the mother was left open to infection for 3 days as her cervix was dilated (which killed her) while the doctors delayed treatment waiting for the foetus' heartbeat to stop. The treatment should have been an abortion but doctors where under the impression that it was against the law to do so. Both mother and baby died.

otto_26

Turtyturd wrote: »

I would have thought in the opinion of anyone with a bit of common sense.:rolleyes:

Like people who think abortion is a cure for mental health illness? :rolleyes:

otto_26

Nodin wrote: »

yep.

Why does yer mans comment say more about him?

How poster describes people with views that are different to his/her own..

Nodin

otto_26 wrote: »

How poster describes people with views that are different to his/her own..

Their views aren't the problem. Its that they'd force a woman to carry through with a pregnancy after they'd been raped/raped incestously.

Pompey Magnus

whatdoicare wrote: »

The baby was 17 weeks and the mother was left open to infection for 3 days as her cervix was dilated (which killed her) while the doctors delayed treatment waiting for the foetus' heartbeat to stop. The treatment should have been an abortion but doctors where under the impression that it was against the law to do so. Both mother and baby died.

I wasn't referring to the Savita case, just was a little confused when you said that a premature baby cannot survive before the "viable" 24 week stage if the mother should die considering they can survive in other circumstances well before this. I don't see why they couldn't given adequate and timely medical intervention.

Turtyturd

otto_26 wrote: »

Like people who think abortion is a cure for mental health illness? :rolleyes:

Of course it's not a cure, but forcing someone to go through with a pregnancy which is a result of rape is going to create a lot of mental health issues.

Morag

Doctors for choice have said that crises pregnancy can be in indicator for mental health issues and the lack of choice and the lack of ease to access to services can add further stress to the mental health of women.

http://www.nwci.ie/download/pdf/abortion_and_suicide.pdf

Unwanted pregnancy is the relevant risk factor;
Non directive counselling is best practice. Risk management requires
access to services.

Low income, young age, inability to travel are particular risks

Restriction of access to abortion increases suicide risk

Choice reduces suicide risk

http://www.nwci.ie/news/2013/03/12/abortion-the-lives-and-health-of-women/

whatdoicare

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

I wasn't referring to the Savita case, just was a little confused when you said that a premature baby cannot survive before the "viable" 24 week stage if the mother should die considering they can survive in other circumstances well before this. I don't see why they couldn't given adequate and timely medical intervention.

Actually, what I said was that doctors consider 24 weeks the cut off and are unlikely to provide medical intervention to keep a baby before that alive through medical intervention as the foetus is just too underdeveloped at that stage.

It is only in the 24th week that the babies bronchi in the lungs develop - (basically the baby would not be able to breath outside the womb at this stage), the organs are developed, the head finally is in proportion to it's body and it's eyes are nearly developed. This is also the time when the baby develops body fat, previous to this the baby is basically loose transparent skin and bone with underdeveloped organs and no lungs.

otto_26

Nodin wrote: »

Their views aren't the problem. Its that they'd force a woman to carry through with a pregnancy after they'd been raped/raped incestously.

Like I said his post says more about him than them

otto_26

Turtyturd wrote: »

Of course it's not a cure, but forcing someone to go through with a pregnancy which is a result of rape is going to create a lot of mental health issues.

Exactly abortion isn't the cure

Turtyturd

otto_26 wrote: »

Exactly abortion isn't the cure

You are the only one claiming it is, I think you don't even know what you're arguing.

PopePalpatine

To those who oppose abortion in the case of fatal foetal abnormality - would you force a woman to give birth to a baby with anencephaly? A foetus which develops anencephaly is little more than a corpse which isn't decaying.

Pride Fighter

The IMO are a bunch of corrupt, misogynistic bigots. They are a discredited organisation and the doctors need a new vehicle to represent them.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If you're going to make such a big claim please give us examples of corruption, misogyny and bigotry, thanks.

Will do.

It is corrupt as it has recently been revealed that it's board members (board members are supposed to voluntarily serve on a board or get legitimate expenses) are getting excessive payments. Board members get one quarter the salary of the IMO's CEO.

They are misogynistic bigots as they are anti-women as proven by how they voted on the motions that would give them control over their own bodies.

King of Kings

god forbid we give people the chance to voice an opinion.:rolleyes:

I mean somebody asked a question and now the liberals don't like the answer...
you either value an opinion or you don't.

If you don't - that's fine - but come clean and admit you don't believe in free expression.

Pride Fighter wrote: »

The IMO are a bunch of corrupt, misogynistic bigots. They are a discredited organisation and the doctors need a new vehicle to represent them.

i see you know "things" - well there is a bar needing propping up somewhere:pac:

Pride Fighter wrote: »

They are misogynistic bigots as they are anti-women as proven by how they voted on the motions that would give them control over their own bodies.

I know one female member of the IMO and guess what she voted against the motions.
You see it's not a gender issue as you making it out - many women are against abortion just as many men for pro-choice.
Your argument is flawed.

Turtyturd

King of Kings wrote: »

god forbid we give people the chance to voice an opinion.:rolleyes:

I mean somebody asked a question and now the liberals don't like the answer...
you either value an opinion or you don't.

If you don't - that's fine - but come clean and admit you don't believe in free expression.




i see you know "things" - well there is a bar needing propping up somewhere:pac:

Unless your sig is taking the p*ss your opinions can't be taken seriously. :pac:

King of Kings

Turtyturd wrote: »

Unless your sig is taking the p*ss your opinions can't be taken seriously. :pac:

ha ha - i hadn't seen my sig in years - I had to check there.
haven't voted dana recently....:)

oppenheimer1

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Will do.

It is corrupt as it has recently been revealed that it's board members (board members are supposed to voluntarily serve on a board or get legitimate expenses) are getting excessive payments. Board members get one quarter the salary of the IMO's CEO.

They are misogynistic bigots as they are anti-women as proven by how they voted on the motions that would give them control over their own bodies.

What you've defined is not systemic corruption (I don't even think its corruption in the general sense either) so you cannot brand the entire organisation as corrupt. What you're doing is the same as saying for example that Ireland is a corrupt country because you think you know of a few corrupt Irish people.

As for being anti-women, there are plenty of women in the organisation who would take serious issue with that charge. Just because you might think it, doesn't make it true btw. Your opinions are not fact.

candy-gal1

My God, this argument seems to go on and round in circles forever and seems to always will :rolleyes: What is the problem tbh?! We are one of the few countries that dont have abortion as far as I know, If theres proper set rules then tbh there cant really be much or any "abortion as contraception, and also no - one is or should ever force anyone to have one, or not have one either.

Let it come in, have decent and strict enough but not ridiculous rules for it, and tbh its only going to have good side effects with the majority of people imho.

Cosmicfox

Sometimes I wish I was a man so I don't have to worry about this half as much. So sick of this BS, makes me want to punch through the computer screen.

Especially denying rape victims the choice to abort. They can still have other children afterwards, with someone they actually love. And the choice to actually have the baby if they so wish will still be there.

TheChizler

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Will do.

It is corrupt as it has recently been revealed that it's board members (board members are supposed to voluntarily serve on a board or get legitimate expenses) are getting excessive payments. Board members get one quarter the salary of the IMO's CEO.

They are misogynistic bigots as they are anti-women as proven by how they voted on the motions that would give them control over their own bodies.

Not helping...

pablomakaveli

otto_26 wrote: »

Your post says a whole lot more about you

It certainly does.

It shows that i dont believe in further punishing a victim of rape and incest by forcing them to carry the product of their rape to term against their will which is something i think any decent human being would believe.

It says more about what kind of person you are that you'd have an objection to that viewpoint.

padd b1975

opinion guy wrote: »

Oh sorry you are right.

ATTENTION IRELAND - do as padd says because he has personal reasons.

Could you tell me what I have told people to do on this thread as regards abortion please?

pickarooney

pablomakaveli wrote: »

You have to be a special kind of sadistic c**t to expect a women to carry a baby to term in those circumstances.

At the same time you have to be a special kind of hypocrite to support the absolute right to life of a foetus... unless its father is a rapist.

Nodin

otto_26 wrote: »

Like I said his post says more about him than them

No, it's an accurate description of those who'd impose their views on others.

otto_26

pablomakaveli wrote: »

It certainly does.

It shows that i dont believe in further punishing a victim of rape and incest by forcing them to carry the product of their rape to term against their will which is something i think any decent human being would believe.

It says more about what kind of person you are that you'd have an objection to that viewpoint.

Product of their rape = Innocent unborn baby

You sure do have a way with words