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 Discussion
Options
Comments
-
-
Richard Bingham wrote: »Better to rip it out of the womb before it can survive, spend some time with it and get closure.
Sick.
Continuing to fight the good fight against "irrationality" and "emotionalism", there, Rich. Stay classy.
Honestly, there's not a lot of purpose in trying to "point for point" this stuff, since the countermove is invariably just to ignore all the actual points, and come out with this sort of stuff.0 -
Richard Bingham wrote: »"In line with (/////////////)depth of 4 ft......
What a vast amount of angry emotive guff.Richard Bingham wrote: »I'm glad you brought that up. The Abortion Bill was passed last year on the back of an argument that it would save women's lives when the truth is that abortion is never necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman - ask the 225 Obstetricians/Gynaecologists, the 307 Medical Professionals, the 41 Midwives and Nurses or the 34 Neonatalogists and Pedriticians who signed the Dublin Declaration; ......
And that proves......?0 -
-
You're far more likely to win support for your cause if you avoid using terms like "pro abort" which are designed specifically to insult people.Richard Bingham wrote: »The irrationality of the above statement is astounding even for a Pro Abort.0 -
Advertisement
-
Oh boy, the David Quinn wannabe is back.
How many gynaecologists are there in Ireland?Richard Bingham wrote: »I'm glad you brought that up. The Abortion Bill was passed last year on the back of an argument that it would save women's lives when the truth is that abortion is never necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman - ask the 225 Obstetricians/Gynaecologists,
How many "medical professionals" are there in Ireland?the 307 Medical Professionals,
How many midwives and nurses are there in Ireland?the 41 Midwives and Nurses
How many neonatalogists and paediatricians are there in Ireland?or the 34 Neonatalogists and Paediatricianswho signed the Dublin Declaration;
“As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.
We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.
I've tried looking up "direct abortion" in online dictionaries, and the Merriam-Webster version makes no reference to it. The Merriam-Webster's medical dictionary defines abortion as:the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus:
a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation—compare miscarriage
b : induced expulsion of a human fetus
c : expulsion of a fetus of a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy—see contagious abortion, trichomoniasis b, vibrionic abortion
I assume this loaded term "direct abortion" refers to Option B?0 -
Ahh, the good old Dublin declaration again!
That's the "symposium" that was organised by Eoghan De Faoite of Youth Defence, chaired by Professor Eamon O'Dwyer of the Life Institute and populated solely with anti abortion campaigners shipped in from the likes of Kenya and Peru.
Only 140 attendees and yet over 700 signatures, too.0 -
Lingua Franca wrote: »Ahh, the good old Dublin declaration again!
That's the "symposium" that was organised by Eoghan De Faoite of Youth Defence, chaired by Professor Eamon O'Dwyer of the Life Institute and populated solely with anti abortion campaigners shipped in from the likes of Kenya and Peru.
Only 140 attendees and yet over 700 signatures, too.
It's a loaves and fishes miracle!!!0 -
Lingua Franca wrote: »Ahh, the good old Dublin declaration again!
That's the "symposium" that was organised by Eoghan De Faoite of Youth Defence, chaired by Professor Eamon O'Dwyer of the Life Institute and populated solely with anti abortion campaigners shipped in from the likes of Kenya and Peru.
Only 140 attendees and yet over 700 signatures, too.
Reminiscent of the professional-liars claiming they filled a hall in Dublin Castle with 2,000 people. :pac:0 -
Is there a list of the names of these gynaecologists, obstetricians and midwives who signed the 'Dublin Declaration'? I would like to be able to avoid them in any future medical consultations/treatments that I may require?0
-
Advertisement
-
Richard Bingham wrote: »I'm glad you brought that up. The Abortion Bill was passed last year on the back of an argument that it would save women's lives when the truth is that abortion is never necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman - ask the 225 Obstetricians/Gynaecologists, the 307 Medical Professionals, the 41 Midwives and Nurses or the 34 Neonatalogists and Pedriticians who signed the Dublin Declaration;
“As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.
We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.
We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”
I'm a bit short on time at the moment but I will get to all your points over the weekend. However, I wanted to deal with this one sooner than the others because it is the most heinous of the bad arguments you promulgate in your posts.
Before we get to the declaration, let's get a couple of things out of the way.
This declaration arose, as Lingua Franca points out, from a symposium organised by anti-abortion activists and composed entirely of pro-life medical professionals. This degree of self-selection already makes it unrepresentative of the medical field and medical best practice.
Secondly, it is an appeal to authority. The declaration makes no reference to research or publications to support its claim but is rather a position statement, the collective "opinion" of these doctors. This makes the declaration utterly useless.
Thirdly, the claim about abortion never being medically necessary is plain wrong. The term "direct abortion" used in the declaration appears nowhere in the medical literature as PopePalpatine points out. The term comes from a comment made by one of the signatories, John Bonnar in 1992:
"It is actually intervening, usually in a normal pregnancy, to get rid of the
pregnancy, to get rid of the foetus. That is what we would consider the direct procurement of an abortion. In other words, it’s an unwanted baby and, therefore, you intervene to end its life. That has never been a part of the practice of Irish obstetrics and I hope it never will be."
Bonnar further clarified direct abortion in 2000 stating:
"In current obstetrical practice rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention is required at a stage in pregnancy when there will be little or no prospect for the survival of the baby, due to extreme immaturity. In these exceptional situations failure to intervene may result in the death of both mother and baby. We consider that there is a fundamental difference between abortion carried out with the intention of taking the life of the baby, for example for social reasons, and the unavoidable death of the baby resulting from essential treatment to protect the life of the mother."
So, what the declaration actually says is that abortion carried out for non-medical reasons is not medically necessary. Blinding flash of the obvious there.
There are, as has been shown on this thread previously, conditions which do require abortion as a treatment. Ectopic pregnancy, for example:
"Ectopic pregnancies is a life-threatening condition. The pregnancy cannot continue to birth (term). The developing cells must be removed to save the mother's life."
[Source]
Furthermore, it also goes against the testimony given to the Dail Committee on Abortion:
Dr. Declan Keane - Master of the National Maternity Hospital
"HELLP syndrome, which is a variant of pre-eclamptic
toxaemia, a condition where the mother has severe hypertension
where the liver is involved … We had a case in 1998,
as I say, where the woman was severely ill with this
condition. She was transferred to a neighbouring general
hospital under the care of the liver specialist and the medical
opinion that we got from the liver specialist was that this
woman was going to die if her pregnancy did not end. It was
a very difficult decision to make. We obviously had to not
only talk at length with the parents involved but with our
legal team as well. But there was no other way in which this
woman would have lived if the pregnancy had continued.
Continuing his evidence Dr Keane referred to another rare condition:
I note that the Green Paper and indeed the submissions have
talked about other possible indications which would include
severe cardiac disease in pregnancy and Eisenmenger’s
syndrome has been mentioned. The Coombe Hospital had a
woman who died from Eisenmenger’s syndrome only last year
and I suspect that the master of the Coombe may wish to
make a comment on that later on. Certainly in my experience
in Oxford we unfortunately again had to terminate two
pregnancies in women with Eisenmenger’s syndrome because
the real risks to the woman, if the pregnancy had continued,
were considerable."
Now, on to the declaration. The declaration which arose out of a symposium of just 150 medical professionals has now attracted 700 signatures. Now even if all of these professionals are doctors and Irish that is still just 4% of the total doctors registered in Ireland. However, this figure is subdivided as follows:
225 OBGYNs
307 Medical Professionals (Aren't they all medical professionals?)
41 Midwives & Nurses
34 Neonatologists & Paediatricians
13 Medical Students (Seriously?)
So, firstly, the "over 700 signatories" touted by the website turns out to be just 620.
Secondly, there are 41 nurses & midwives who have signed the declaration. However, according to An Bord Altranais there were over 66,000 active registered nurses in Ireland in 2013. That's just 0.06% of the total. So again completely unrepresentative.
Thirdly, there are 13 medical students included. Even though this declaration is just an opinion piece anyway, why the well would the signatures of medical students be at all persuasive. I'm sure they signed because of all their years of experience in dealing with the complications of pregnancy.
Now, the most important question here is whether these signatories are Irish. From the perspective of whether or not the claim is true, nationality is irrelevant, however, the Dublin Declaration supporters such as yourself are promulgating this statement as if it is somehow meaningful or representative of the opinions of doctors. Even if all these doctors were Irish, their opinions would just be a tiny minority, but the question is are they all Irish?
As it turns out, unsurprisingly, NO.
Let's take some examples, starting with the Medical Professionals group:
Dr. John Wilks (Signature no. 307, Medical Professionals)
Writer for pro-life website lifeissues.net and a Consultant Pharmacist (in Japan).
Dr. Douglas Randell BSc(Med) MBBS, DAvMed, MACTM, FRACGP, FACAsM (Signature no. 294, Medical Professionals)
A specialist in Aerospace medicine with a registered clinic at:
Harrison Road,
Duntroon,
Canberra 2600,
Australia
Dr. Eamonn Mathieson MBBS FANZCA
Dr. Rhys Morgan MBBS (Hons) FANZCA
(Signatures 265 & 266, Medical Professionals)
Both of the above are registered anaesthetists and hold the qualification FANZCA (Fellow of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists. Mathieson currently works at the Mercy Hospital for Women in Melbourne, while Morgan no longer actually practices medicine but rather sits on a number of boards and committees including government medical advisory committees, chairman of Welseley Anaesthesia & Pain Management Group and the board of a rural development programme in Shaanxi province, China. Of course all this free time away from medicine means that he could complete his degree in theology from the Australian College of Theology.
Dr. Jonathan Baré MBBS FRACS (Signature 267, Medical Professionals)
A qualified surgeon from Melbourne, Bare specialises in Knee & Hip Surgery. So I'm sure he's eminently qualified to speak about his 0 years of experience in dealing with pregnant women.
Dr. Joseph Turner MBBS, BMedSc(Hons), PhD, FACRRM (Signature 239, Medical Professionals)
A qualified doctor and pharmacy lecturer, Turner specialises in Rural and Remote Medicine (FACRRM). So he was ideally suited to dealing with all the pregnant women he encountered while serving as Lead Doctor on US TV series Survivor.
Dr. Amanda Lamont MBBS, DipWH, CFCMC, CFCE (Signature 203, Medical Professionals)
A fertility specialist, Lamont practices medicine from her clinic in:
Suite 15, Dr 7 Medical Centre 162 Wanneroo Rd, Yokine WA 6060, Australia
So a woman who spends her professional life helping women to conceive is against abortion. Gee, there's a shocker.
Dr. Dominic Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh (Signature 84, Medical Professionals)
A triple specialist, Pedulla specialises in cardiology, vein diseases and vascular medicine at the Oklahoma Vein & Endovascular Center. I'm sure that he has lots of conversations about abortion as he spends his days blasting varicose veins from little old ladies.
The medical professionals group is a disparate group of doctors from across the globe whose expertise in the area (the one thing that even be remotely persuasive) is borderline at best. And this is supposed to be proof of what exactly?
As for the OBGYN group:
Dr. John North MBBS, FRACS, FAOrthA (Signature 212, Obstetricians & Gynaecologists)
John North is a qualified orthopaedic surgeon with 38 years of specialist experience in Queensland. Hold on, isn't this supposed to be the list of OBGYNs. Oops! The FAOrthA qualification should have been a dead giveaway.
Dr. Norman Gage MRCOG, UK FRANZGOG (Signature 213, Obstetricians & Gynaecologists)
A member of Doctors for the Family, Gage has campaigned against same-sex marriage along with his fundamentalist Christian cohorts. So I'm sure he is relying on solid medical evidence in forming his opinion and not his religious beliefs. Right?
Dr. Margaret Hart DO (Signature 158, Obstetricians & Gynaecologists)
A specialist in geriatric medicine from Jackson, Minnesota. I'm sure she must be totally outraged at all the senior citizens plaguing her for abortions.
Dr. Sebastian Borges MBBS, DGO, DHSM, LM, MRCOG (Signature 32, Obstetricians & Gynaecologists)
This name should stand out if none of the others don't. A qualified OBGYN, Borges practiced in Irish hospitals in the 1980s before relocating to Scotland. Borges was struck off in 2001 for sexually inappropriate and unnecessary examinations of women in the UK. A bastion of moral courage right there.
All told out of the 225 names on this list there are over 150 Americans not to mention doctors from Australia, Colombia, Malta, Italy, France, Poland, Canada, Spain and Chile. In total less than 30 of the 225 names are active registered doctors in Ireland.
As for the Neonatologists & Paediatricians group, well what do you know the same ragtag bunch of fundamentalist christians (Michelle Cretella is a writer for lifesitenews and an anti-SSM campaigner) and non-nationals. In this list just 2 out of 34 names are Irish. Even this list, however isn't immune from the falsehoods of the other list. One name on the list stands out: Eucharia Anunobi. While listed as a doctor, this former actress turned evangelical minister has no such qualifications.
This list is worse than useless, it is composed of doctors (mostly non-specialists) giving their opinion. Many of them belong to conservative Christian advocacy groups indicating their positions have more to do with religion than any real medical science. Only a small fraction of the overall list is Irish meaning that whatever way you slice it, these opinions don't represent anyone but the people who signed. It has no bearing on best practice or the opinions of the majority of doctors.
Your argument based as it is on this list is fractally wrong.
I will get to your other points as soon as time allows.0 -
To add to the above, I made a list a while back of the speakers at the symposium, with links to their pro life activities. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81258321&postcount=13560
-
Lingua Franca wrote: »Only 140 attendees and yet over 700 signatures, too.
Signatures probably copied and pasted from that scientists for creationism declaration that AIG was running a while back.0 -
The Life Institute have kindly provided us with a list of people not to vote for in the European elections.
http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/current-projects/be-the-change-vote-pro-life/candidates-europe/0 -
PopePalpatine wrote: »Oh boy, the David Quinn wannabe is back.
I've tried looking up "direct abortion" in online dictionaries, and the Merriam-Webster version makes no reference to it. The Merriam-Webster's medical dictionary defines abortion as:
I assume this loaded term "direct abortion" refers to Option B?
Well, he could always mean the direct method in the third sentence of his post at 01.44 above. Then again, maybe he was shooting from the hip.0 -
PopePalpatine wrote: »I've tried looking up "direct abortion" in online dictionaries, and the Merriam-Webster version makes no reference to it. The Merriam-Webster's medical dictionary defines abortion as:
I assume this loaded term "direct abortion" refers to Option B?
I can't improve on oldrnwisr's tour de force on this... but since I can't "thank" it as often as it deserves either, let me echo the essence of this.
You won't find a definition of "direct abortion" in a medical dictionary, as it's not a medical term. It's originally (I think, unless someone has an earlier usage and definition) from Evangelium Vitae, a Papal Encyclical. You might eventually find it in non-med dictionary if the "completely secular and having no interest in what the Roman Catholic Church says on the matter" astroturfs it successfully enough.
Essentially it's the ol' "double effect" nonsense. If you're sick enough that the only viable treatment to save your life "incidentally" kills the zygote/embryo/foetus, it's "indirect", and thus all grand. No cheating and intervening in the most timely fashion with the most medically beneficial procedure, though! So far example, for ectopic pregnancy, medical treatment and salpingostomy are precluded; if you wait until the fallopian tube becomes infected and has to be removed, that's permissible. If you were to want a salpingectomy, of course, that'd be a bad thing in itself, under the "elective sterilisation" head.
Basically it's doctrinal Catch-22. If you want an abortion, it's ironclad proof that you shouldn't be able to have one.0 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,496 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 26416
Pro-life crowd have once again lowered themselves to criminal damage once again, all in a days work I suppose
http://www.thejournal.ie/lorraine-higgins-posters-pro-abort-1472719-May2014/LORRAINE HIGGINS SAYS she will report the defacement of two of her election posters with abortion graffiti to the gardaí.
The Labour senator, who is running for the European Parliament in Midlands North-West, said that one of her posters was stolen while two others were defaced with the slogan ‘Pro Abort’ in Leixlip and Maynooth.
“This is wilful criminal damage and dirty tricks and I am going to report it to the gardaí,” she told TheJournal.ie this lunchtime.0 -
Apologies that I didn't get back to this over the weekend but RL issues got in the way.Richard Bingham wrote: »"In line with best medical practice" - that's a very non specific way of expressing it Doctor. Oh no your not a doctor are you?
Your argument is weak enough without the snide comments thanks.
Intact dilation and extraction, referred to as partial-birth abortion by pro-life advocates was an extremely rare procedure when it was used in the USA. In 2000, a survey conducted by the Guttmacher Institute found that the procedure was only used in 0.17% of all abortions. However, since the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was upheld by the US Supreme Court, even this tiny number has fallen considerably. However, there remain some specific circumstances where IDX is carried out.
My point above, is that the procedure selected by doctors when performing an abortion is not dictated randomly or at the patient's request but rather on the basis of which procedure involves the least risk to the health of the patient. Hence, in line with medical best practice.Richard Bingham wrote: »Better to rip it out of the womb before it can survive, spend some time with it and get closure.
Sick.
I understand that you feel strongly about this issue and so I understand the emotive language. However, the only way we are going to make real progress in discussing the issues in this debate is with a lucid thought process and an even temper. So, as understandable as the comment above might be, it is deeply unhelpful.Richard Bingham wrote: »Excuse me are you speaking for all doctors?
From above;
"We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child
My point holds - abortion and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother are fundamentally different. Sorry if that doesn't suit your purpose (of trying to twist the terms to make your view seem more acceptable).
I've already answered this in the last post but to reiterate, the doctors who signed the declaration don't speak for all doctors either. The term direct abortion used in the Dublin Declaration is not found anywhere in peer-reviewed medical literature. The terms that are used in the medical literature to distinguish between medical and non-medical reasons are therapeutic abortion (i.e. to save the life/health of the patient) or elective abortions (i.e. where it is the choice of the patient).
The Dublin Declaration attempts to muddy these waters by conveniently dropping their own qualifier "direct" when it suits them. Therefore, you end up with claims from groups like Youth Defence. By dropping the qualifier and then stating:
"Abortion is never medically necessary."
groups like Youth Defence are misleading people.Richard Bingham wrote: »No. That was a U.S. review you cited. We know where they stand. This is Ireland and we don't call them therapeutic abortions. You just want to use the word 'abortion' to get people thinking "Why yes, these are good, we should have more of them".
I have no preference for the language used in a debate as long as it is suitably specific. Its nice to see you exercising your psychic powers but that isn't what I want or think. I would prefer as Bill Clinton said to see abortion safe, legal and rare. I think that we should all be trying to reduce the number of abortions, however I believe that this will be most effective through a wider uptake of contraception and better sex education. The prohibition of abortion will not achieve this.
Oh, and as for Ireland we do use the term therapeutic abortion. In fact, the government's Green Paper on Abortion uses the term no less than 14 times.
Green Paper on AbortionRichard Bingham wrote: »How many of them polls asked leading questions?
There's no evidence that any of the polls I have quoted used leading questions. Do you have any evidence to the contrary.Richard Bingham wrote: »A poll which states that people are in favour of something which will save the life of a woman is not big news. We (even I, believe or not) want to save women's lives.
Hold on a sec, let's rewind a little here. This all started because Brian Shanahan posted:
"Also the majority of the population are currently in favour of a more liberal system than we have"
to which you simply responded:
"No. Not true."
However, when polls find that:- A September 2004 Royal College of Surgeons survey for the Crisis Pregnancy Agency found that, in the under-45 age groups, 51% supported abortion on-demand, with 39% favouring the right to abortion in limited circumstances. Only 8% felt that abortion should not be permitted in any circumstances.[15]
- A June 2007 TNS/MRBI poll found that 43% supported legal abortion if a woman believed it was in her best interest while 51% remained opposed. 82% favoured legalization for cases when the woman's life is in danger, 75% when the foetus cannot survive outside the womb, and 73% when the pregnancy has resulted from sexual abuse.[17]
- A January 2010 Irish Examiner/Red C online poll found that 60% of 18-35 year olds believe abortion should be legalised, and that 10% of this age group had been in a relationship where an abortion took place. The same survey also showed that 75% of women believed the morning-after pill should be an over-the-counter (OTC) drug, as opposed to a prescription drug.[18]
- A November 2012 Sunday Business Post/Red C poll of 1,003 adults showed that 85% of voters would like the government to "Legislate for the X case, which means allowing abortion where the mother's life is threatened, including by suicide", with 10% opposed and 5% undecided. The same poll also found that 82% of voters supported "A constitutional amendment to extend the right to abortion to all cases where the health of the mother is seriously threatened and also in cases of rape", and 36% of voters supported "A constitutional amendment to allow for legal abortion in any case where a woman requests it". In addition, 63% of voters also supported "A constitutional amendment to limit the X case, by excluding a threat of suicide as a grounds for abortion, but still allowing abortion, where the mother's life is threatened outside of suicide".[20][21]
- A January 2013 Sunday Times/Behaviour and Attitudes poll of 916 voters found that 87% would support legislation to provide abortion where the woman's life was in danger for reasons other than threat of suicide, 80% would support legislation to provide abortion where there was a foetal abnormality meaning the baby could not survive outside of the womb, 74% would support legislation to provide abortion where the pregnancy was a result of rape, and 59% would support legislation to provide abortion where the woman displayed suicidal feelings. Overall, 92% supported allowing abortion in one of these four circumstances, while 51% supported allowing abortion in all four circumstances.[23]
- A February 2013 Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll of 1,000 voters in face-to-face interviews in all constituencies found that 84% felt that abortion should be allowed when the woman's life is at risk, 79% felt that abortion should be allowed whenever the foetus cannot survive outside the womb, 78% felt that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest, 71% felt that abortion should be allowed where the woman is suicidal as a result of the pregnancy (the X case result), 70% felt that abortion should be allowed when the woman's health is at risk, and 37% felt that abortion should be provided when a woman deems it to be in her best interest.
So, even using your narrower criteria, polls have shown that a majority of the population favour expanding the legal limits on abortion beyond circumstances where there is a danger to the life of the mother. So Brian's point stands.Richard Bingham wrote: »The problem is that abortion doesn't save lives.
Except that it does. Or to be more specific, safe, legal abortion saves lives. The WHO, who Youth Defence and other pro-life advocates like to misquote has found that unsafe backstreet abortions in countries with laws against abortion is responsible for 13% of all maternal deaths globally.
For example, in 1966 Nicolai Ceaucescu introduced a law banning abortion in Romania. This resulted in an increase in maternal mortality from 16.9 per 100,000 live births in 1965 to 151.3 per 100,000 live births in 1982. In 1989, once Ceaucescu was deposed, abortion was once again legalised. This resulted in a 50% drop in maternal deaths in the first year post-legalisation alone.
From abortion to contraception: A resource to public policies and reproductive behavior in Central and Eastern Europe from 1917 to the present.
Commentary: The public health consequences of restricted induced abortion – Lessons from Romania.Richard Bingham wrote: »Are you proposing that there is no definition of when life begins and ends so? Do you want to use this to justify not only abortion but euthanasia and sure can't we kill middle aged people in their forties so?
No, what I am saying is that there is no authoritative definition. And I said nothing about euthanasia. For me, I believe that if we are to impose restrictions on abortion, that the first point that should give us pause is when brain activity begins at roughly 12 weeks. As Sarky previously pointed out:
"Brain activity can be measured. So can the level of connectivity within the brain. We've established when a foetus brain undergoes a rush of increasing the connections between cells (synaptogenesis, I believe it's called), and when it's finally complicated enough to be called a life. Without those connections, all you have is a lump of wobbly grey matter that's as much a person as the liver or pancreas it shares a body with.
Now there's no hard and fast timeframe for this to occur, it happens slower for some embryos, faster for others, and when you give or take a few days on nailing down exactly when conception occurred, you have a week or two window where this growth spurt happens. And even during the growth spurt there's no one point from non-person to person. Life just doesn't work in the black and white spectrum people so often want it to.
But it's a much more thought-out point than "life begins at conception". "Richard Bingham wrote: »No. Not at all. A handful per year. Maybe two handfuls. Oby/gyn's gave evidence to this effect at the Committee hearings last year. I couldn't be bothered looking for the quote as your figure is so far out there's no need.
We don't need to rely on personal testimony, we have the actual figures from the NHS. The period specified by Bellatori was 1980-2012, during which 156,076 Irish women travelled to the UK for abortions. You stated that: "Do you think that even 1,000 traveled because their lives were at risk?" to which I replied that approximately 3000 women or approximately 94 women per year travelled because their lives were at risk. So a bit more than two handfuls.Richard Bingham wrote: »I didn't express surprise. I suggested that his post posits that there would be close to 200,000 illegal or exported abortions among the population of England and Wales each year if abortion was made illegal. This is simply not true. Availability is a factor.
Availability is a factor but nowhere near as important as you seem to think. For example, Ireland has an abortion rate of 6.7 per 1000 live births. Croatia, on the other hand, where abortion is legal has a rate of 5.7 per 1000 live births. As I have said previously, restrictions on abortion have very little impact on abortion rate.Richard Bingham wrote: »If you think that the rate of abortions in Ireland is going to stay static, even if it becomes far easier to have one, then I believe you are incorrect. There are a multitude of other factors (societal, economic, religious, geographical, technological, medical etc) at work which can affect the rate of abortions. Throwing out a stack of numbers without getting behind the figures is worthless.
I agree that there are other factors but this is not an argument in favour of banning abortion. The numbers of Irish women seeking abortions abroad has already been falling over the last 10 years from 6320 in 2003 to 4402 in 2010. This has not been implemented through toughening abortion legislation.Richard Bingham wrote: »Furthermore, grouping countries together when quoting the incidence rate is probably one of the oldest and cheapest tricks in the book. I'm not suggesting that you grouped them, they may have been presented this way, but the fact is that at the best of times statistics lie, but in the hands of a biased person they are positively useless as there are hundreds of strokes that can be pulled to make the result show anything you want it to show.
Well, I did post a link to the paper so you could have read that maybe before making claims about it. I don't see how the study suffers from any bias, given that it is a study funded by the WHO. However, obviously if you have actual evidence of bias rather than baseless mud-slinging, I'm sure we'd all love to hear it.0 -
-
Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,407 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 17141
Moderator: Television, Psychology and Dublin County North.
CMod: Entertainment
0 -
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,496 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 26416
Best not to vote for Anne-Maree Quinn if you're in Dublin, she's very much "pro-life"
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/05/19/unborn-free/
It also seems she's also against allowing gay marriage0 -
Is she related to David "solicitors letters" Quinn?0
-
That is a great documentary Black Oil has posted about (After Tiller). I logged in to recommend it. It focuses on late term abortions and the reasons for it. The most striking aspect of the documentary is the contrast between what actually goes on in the clinic and the image many people have in their head about what is going on inside the clinic. There are a lot of tragic stories behind why the women are seeking abortions.
This is a very good article written by someone (in the US) who left the "pro-life" movement. Some very interesting facts and figures and observations.
How I Lost Faith in the “Pro-Life” Movement
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html0 -
You're far more likely to win support for your cause if you avoid using terms like "pro abort" which are designed specifically to insult people.
Point taken Robindch. I think shortening it to Pro Abort may make it sound more offensive than saying a person is Pro-abortion. I won't use the shortened term again. I will not refer to them as Pro-Choice however as this is a sugar coating, its non specific (about the choice in question) and it ignores that fact that some of the people involved (baby, father) have no choice. People who are in favour of Israel say they are pro-Israel. People who are in favour of guns say they are pro-gun. For someone who is in favour of abortion to say they are pro-choice is sugar coating.0 -
This declaration arose, as Lingua Franca points out, from a symposium organised by anti-abortion activists and composed entirely of pro-life medical professionals. This degree of self-selection already makes it unrepresentative of the medical field and medical best practice.
Secondly, it is an appeal to authority. The declaration makes no reference to research or publications to support its claim but is rather a position statement, the collective "opinion" of these doctors. This makes the declaration utterly useless.
Thirdly, the claim about abortion never being medically necessary is plain wrong. The term "direct abortion" used in the declaration appears nowhere in the medical literature as PopePalpatine points out. The term comes from a comment made by one of the signatories, John Bonnar in 1992:
Obviously they were pro-life - apart from being quite obvious, how does that negate their professional opinions.
The opinion of this many trained medical professionals is utterly useless, says a poster on boards.ie. You flatter yourself.
You can't outlaw the term 'direct abortion'. Its a a perfectly adequate way of describing the intentional killing of the unborn (as opposed to necessary medical treatment which results in the death of the unborn). I've referred to this in previous posts, the Pro-Abortion sides objective to use the one term 'abortion', in order to prevent differentiation between abortion (which for the purpose of differentiation the Dublin Declaration referred to as 'direct abortion') and medical intervention which may well be necessary and right, even if it results in the death of an unborn child.The term comes from a comment made by one of the signatories, John Bonnar in 1992:
"It is actually intervening, usually in a normal pregnancy, to get rid of the
pregnancy, to get rid of the foetus. That is what we would consider the direct procurement of an abortion. In other words, it’s an unwanted baby and, therefore, you intervene to end its life. That has never been a part of the practice of Irish obstetrics and I hope it never will be."
Bonnar further clarified direct abortion in 2000 stating:
"In current obstetrical practice rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention is required at a stage in pregnancy when there will be little or no prospect for the survival of the baby, due to extreme immaturity. In these exceptional situations failure to intervene may result in the death of both mother and baby. We consider that there is a fundamental difference between abortion carried out with the intention of taking the life of the baby, for example for social reasons, and the unavoidable death of the baby resulting from essential treatment to protect the life of the mother."
So, what the declaration actually says is that abortion carried out for non-medical reasons is not medically necessary. Blinding flash of the obvious there.
No the Declaration doesn't say any such thing. This is an unashamed twisting of the truth. You are using something which one of the over 600 signatories said in 2000 to argue that the Dublin Declaration says something which it clearly doesn't say. Read it again at http://www.dublindeclaration.com, it says;
“As experienced practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.
We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.
We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”
This continuous twisting of the truth is what is making this thread absolutely useless and pointless. You know you can't win without misquoting anything and everything so you just misquote anything and everything and when called on it you just move on to the next misquote. Please address this point in your response THE DECLARATION DOES NOT STATE THAT ABORTION CARRIED OUT FOR NON-MEDICAL REASONS IS NOT MEDICALLY NECESSARY. If you don't address this, there is no point in continuing this.There are, as has been shown on this thread previously, conditions which do require abortion as a treatment. Ectopic pregnancy, for example:
"Ectopic pregnancies is a life-threatening condition. The pregnancy cannot continue to birth (term). The developing cells must be removed to save the mother's life."
I'll stop there as you don't need to make this point to me. I have already stated that if a pregnancy is clearly not viable and it not to being terminated will clearly result in the death of the mother, then it should be terminated. I have never met a Pro-Life person who believed that the baby/foetus and mother should be let die in such a situation. I believe that even the Church agrees that it has to be terminated. Again I suppose you want to call this abortion, but like I have stated before, I don't accept that (even moderate Pro-Life or Pro-Choice) people would call this an abortion, or that any woman who has had to go through that should have it described in this way.
Your trying to polarise this, make it black or white, right or wrong so that you can instance a situation where it is right (such as ectopic pregnancy) and claim it is therefore right full stop.Now, on to the declaration. The declaration which arose out of a symposium of just 150 medical professionals has now attracted 700 signatures. Now even if all of these professionals are doctors and Irish that is still just 4% of the total doctors registered in Ireland. However, this figure is subdivided as follows:
Your argument must either be that non Irish medical professionals opinions don't count, or alternatively that even if 10,000 people sign a petition, because there are 4 mln + in the country it isn't enough. I don't agree with either.This list is worse than useless, it is composed of doctors (mostly non-specialists) giving their opinion. Many of them belong to conservative Christian advocacy groups indicating their positions have more to do with religion than any real medical science. Only a small fraction of the overall list is Irish meaning that whatever way you slice it, these opinions don't represent anyone but the people who signed. It has no bearing on best practice or the opinions of the majority of doctors.
Your argument based as it is on this list is fractally wrong.
You must be taking the p1ss deliberately for a laugh. The opinion of any medical professional is certainly worth at least as much as yours and in reality a damn sight more.these opinions don't represent anyone but the people who signed
Who ever said that the people who signed the declaration were purporting to represent the views of others not even present?0 -
Second 'house of horrors' abortion clinic where doctor 'twisted heads off fetus' necks with his bare hands' is investigated in Texashttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325786/Douglas-Karpen-Second-house-horrors-abortion-clinic-investigated-Texas.html
Think about that, "twisted heads off fetus".
Sick b4stard.
I see he is also accused of killing babies outside of the womb. How sick is that. Now had he killed them inside the womb that would be fine but outside. Sick, sick, sick.
0 -
I'd think I'm fairly moderate leaning towards pro-life and I'd call it abortion. I think it obstructs the discussion when you have to debate whether 'termination' means terminating a life or terminating a pregnancy, whether 'abortion' is aborting a pregnancy, a fetus, or a life, or whether the term can only be used for 'at-will' 'terminations'.Richard Bingham wrote: »Again I suppose you want to call this abortion, but like I have stated before, I don't accept that (even moderate Pro-Life or Pro-Choice) people would call this an abortion, or that any woman who has had to go through that should have it described in this way.
I really think a woman who has to go though the process is only going to be negatively affected by the term if you deliberately restrict the connotation to a pejoratively negative one.0 -
I think one of the points oldrnwiser was making was regarding the misrepresentation by the symposium that they were all experts in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology.
They weren't.
Another point was that if all the medical professionals who signed the declaration were doctors, they would still only represent 4% of the total doctors in Ireland. This does not mean their opinion is irrelevant, just that it lacks peer review. I would view this as whilst their statement may be valid (it is an accurate reflection of their opinion) it may not be reliable (it is not an accurate reflection of all doctors' opinions)
It's pointless to argue from authority when said authority is lacking. Their misrepresentation has undermined their position.0 -
There's tons of crazy people out there. They don't really factor in a discussion about not crazy people though do they? We don't make Irish road traffic laws based on oklahoman militants filling their cars with explosives and driving them into office buildings.Richard Bingham wrote: »Second 'house of horrors' abortion clinic where doctor 'twisted heads off fetus' necks with his bare hands' is investigated in Texashttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2325786/Douglas-Karpen-Second-house-horrors-abortion-clinic-investigated-Texas.html
Think about that, "twisted heads off fetus". Sick b4stard. I see he is also accused of killing babies outside of the womb. How sick is that. Now had he killed them inside the womb that would be fine but outside. Sick, sick, sick.
0 -
Advertisement
-
Richard Bingham wrote: »{...}
What're your views on contraception, particularly the pill? What do you think of fertilised eggs that are expelled naturally by women?0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf3rETOO62s
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement