Abortion Discussion

rainbow kirby

Not even necessarily left-wing. Just one with some actual common sense.

Not a NSA agent

Removing the 8th amendment could also suit those against abortion. Im assuming it would also take out the part about having the right to access information and to travel. It could become illegal to give information or to travel. Very unlikely to happen but as much chance of the free for all the likes of iona and youth defense will claim.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

sinead88

There's no way repealing the 8th could make matters worse. Information isn't exactly freely available as it is, and taking away the right to travel would be a massive human rights issue, as well as being unenforceable.

Loafing Oaf

otpmb wrote: »

And this could only realistically be changed by the election of a left wing government, who would then propose a referendum?

Wouldn't give up on FG yet. They have yet to declare a party position but a number of senior figures have come out in favour of constitutional change...

Cabaal

sinead88 wrote: »

There's no way repealing the 8th could make matters worse. Information isn't exactly freely available as it is, and taking away the right to travel would be a massive human rights issue, as well as being unenforceable.

And the so called pro life crowd know this,
Ireland locking up pregnant women for trying to travel to the UK for an abortion, Ireland would be all over the international news and there'd be a large number of very public court cases.

It would make the pro life crowd look the same as the crowd who used to lock up single mothers.... Oh wait, they are the same religious group in the majority of cases....

Peregrinus

Hold on a second.

The reason for repealing the 8th amendment, presumably, is the expectation that the Oireachtas would then legislate for an abortion regime which affords women a higher degree of choice than they currently have. (How much higher is another question but, certainly, higher than at present.)

If you don't think the Oireachtas is going to do this, there's no point in looking for the repeal of the 8th, is there?

OK. Also repealing the 13th amendment (constitutional prohibition of abortion does not limit freedom of travel) and the 14th amendment (constitutional prohibition of abortion does not limit the right to distribute information) wouldn't, in itself, do anything to limit either the freedom of travel or the freedom to distribute information. It would only create the theoretical possibility that the Oireachtas could legislate to limit these freedoms.

But it make no sense to expect the Oireachtas to legislate to increase access to abortion, and also to restrict travel for, or information about, abortions abroad. If you seriously think the Oireachtas might legislate to limit freedom of travel in this area then there is no point at all in campaigning for repeal of the 8th amendment.

The 13th and 14th amendments both depend on the 8th amendment, and if the 8th amendment is deleted and the 13th and 14th left in, they would simply read nonsensically. It's an absolute no-brainer that if the 8th amendment goes, the 13th and 14th go with it.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

And Savita Halappanavar needed an abortion. The two obstetricians involved in the investigation into her death both said that this would have given her the best chance of surviving, better than even the best care for sepsis - which of course she didn't get anyway. So not only did the Irish system refuse her the best care available, it also effectively deprived her of the second best care. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of our capacity to replace internationally recognized best practice in terms of obstetrical care by our own inferior standards of care made up as we go along.

Wow... I was sure the reports said that Savita Halappanavar needed antibiotics.
Dr Boylan did, in fairness, say that he felt that had her pregnancy been aborted on the Tuesday (the day before she showed symptoms of sepsis) that it was highly likely on the balance on probability that she would not have died, and he said that any termination from 9.30am on Wednesday morning onwards was unlikely to have made a difference to the outcome.

Which doesn't really say a great deal; any pregnancy at all that is aborted increases the likelihood, on balance of probability, that the potential mother will not die, because being pregnant is inherently more life threatening than not being pregnant. So any doctor at all could tell you a termination will give any pregnant woman the best chance of surviving; it won't tell you all that much about the specifics of Ms Halappanavar's case though.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

Wow... I was sure the reports said that Savita Halappanavar needed antibiotics.
Dr Boylan did, in fairness, say that he felt that had her pregnancy been aborted on the Tuesday (the day before she showed symptoms of sepsis) that it was highly likely on the balance on probability that she would not have died, and he said that any termination from 9.30am on Wednesday morning onwards was unlikely to have made a difference to the outcome.

Which doesn't really say a great deal; any pregnancy at all that is aborted increases the likelihood, on balance of probability, that the potential mother will not die, because being pregnant is inherently more life threatening than not being pregnant. So any doctor at all could tell you a termination will give any pregnant woman the best chance of surviving; it won't tell you all that much about the specifics of Ms Halappanavar's case though.

Of course it does.

She did die.

Another course of action, recommended by a top doctor in the state meant that it would have been

highly likely on the balance on probability that she would not have died

You wrote those words, then you somehow wound up undoing them.

Your reasoning at the end is massively, massively flawed. We're not talking about a trivial increase in probability of survival, which you paint it as.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_of_estimative_probability#Medicine

Word

Probability

Likely

Expected to happen to more than 50% of subjects

Frequent

Will probably happen to 10-50% of subjects

Occasional

Will happen to 1-10% of subjects

Rare

Will happen to less than 1% of subjects

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course it does.

She did die.

Another course of action, recommended by a top doctor in the state meant that it would have been

You wrote those words, then you somehow wound up undoing them.

Your reasoning at the end is massively, massively flawed. We're not talking about a trivial increase in probability of survival, which you paint it as.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_of_estimative_probability#Medicine

Word

Probability

Likely

Expected to happen to more than 50% of subjects

Frequent

Will probably happen to 10-50% of subjects

Occasional

Will happen to 1-10% of subjects

Rare

Will happen to less than 1% of subjects

Thanks Emmet, a clear and concise dismissal of yet another of the various attempts at mystification regularly trotted out by anti-choice posters about Savita Halappanavar's death.

The cavalier attitude towards a young, healthy woman dying an agonizing and avoidable death is notable. Absolam says himself that any pregnancy carries with it a risk of death for the woman, but he appears to imply that this in some way justifies not terminating this particular pregnancy. There's a break in logic there that I can't follow - unless he means that any pregnancy-related death therefore becomes unavoidable. Or possibly just unimportant, in the greater scheme of things, ie in order to maintain the fiction that Irish women don't have abortions.

I presume he means the latter, since the former is clearly inaccurate.

oldrnwisr

Two Sheds wrote: »

You really should try reading what was written before wasting your time on contradicting an assertion that was never made.

Except that you did make an assertion. Two in fact.

You said:

Two Sheds wrote: »

Fortunately, Ireland remains a relatively safe place for women to have their babies and a safe place for babies to be allowed live. The same definitely can't be said of the UK.

which makes two assertions that a) Ireland is relatively safe for women to give birth and b) that the UK isn't as safe as Ireland. Both of which assertions have been shown to be dead wrong.

You can't pretend that you didn't make these assertions just because you've been called out on them.

Huntergonzo

Ps, I'd also add that the UK is a pretty safe place for women to have their babies and for babies to be allowed live in fairness, like I wouldn't be particularly worried if someone I knew was having a baby over there.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course it does. She did die. Another course of action, recommended by a top doctor in the state meant that it would have been You wrote those words, then you somehow wound up undoing them. Your reasoning at the end is massively, massively flawed. We're not talking about a trivial increase in probability of survival, which you paint it as.

I'm not painting it as anything of the sort; you can tell by the way that I didn't say it's a trivial increase in probability of survival.
What I said was any pregnancy at all that is aborted increases the likelihood, on balance of probability, that the potential mother will not die, because being pregnant is inherently more life threatening than not being pregnant.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not painting it as anything of the sort; you can tell by the way that I didn't say it's a trivial increase in probability of survival.
What I said was any pregnancy at all that is aborted increases the likelihood, on balance of probability, that the potential mother will not die, because being pregnant is inherently more life threatening than not being pregnant.

Which of course is true, but also an extremely strange point to make and to pin to the previous point you made.

Amputating a limb reduces the likelihood of dying through infection in that limb, yet people don't take this precaution in general.

Is that fact relevant to the situation when someone has an extraordinarily damaged limb?

Would you not consider that a strange thing to enter into the conversation?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

The cavalier attitude towards a young, healthy woman dying an agonizing and avoidable death is notable. Absolam says himself that any pregnancy carries with it a risk of death for the woman, but he appears to imply that this in some way justifies not terminating this particular pregnancy. There's a break in logic there that I can't follow - unless he means that any pregnancy-related death therefore becomes unavoidable. Or possibly just unimportant, in the greater scheme of things, ie in order to maintain the fiction that Irish women don't have abortions.
I presume he means the latter, since the former is clearly inaccurate.

Well, I'm fascinated how you note the cavalier attitude for a start; amazing the attitudes you ascribe to people purely on the basis that you disagree with them.

Perhaps you'll point out where I imply the risk justifys not terminating the pregnancy? Obviously constructing the argument on my behalf (and how familiar is that!) is the basis for your entertaining extrapolations, but maybe you could try debating what I said instead of what you make up?

I'll even help you out; doctors were justified in not aborting Ms Halappanavars child when her pregnancy was not endangering her life. As soon as a danger to her life was evident there was ample justification for the termination. The fact that this point was not identified until after an abortion would have made a difference to her chance of surviving (according to Dr Boylan) is where the real problem was in this case. Ms Halappanavars tragic death didn't occur because she didn't get an abortion, it occurred because she didn't get the correct care and treatment (which could have included an abortion) to save her life.

Absolam

Deleted User wrote: »

Which of course is true, but also an extremely strange point to make and to pin to the previous point you made. Amputating a limb reduces the likelihood of dying through infection in that limb, yet people don't take this precaution in general. Is that fact relevant to the situation when someone has an extraordinarily damaged limb? Would you not consider that a strange thing to enter into the conversation?

Not if you're claiming that someone would probably not have died had they amputated the limb before they knew it was infected.... because in that case you can say the same of anyone else who could have amputated an uninfected limb.
Dr Boylans statement that Ms Halappanavars life was highly likely on the balance on probability to have been saved by an abortion was predicated on the abortion taking place before there was a risk to Ms Halappanavars life.
Further, her obgyn, Dr Astbury quite correctly showed no reluctance in scheduling an abortion once she believed it would address a risk to her patients life; the tragedy was that due to the rapid onset of sepsis which had gone unremarked due to insufficiently clear protocols in place for the management of sepsis, it was at that stage, unbeknownst to Dr Astbury, already too late to save Ms Halappanavars life.

I have no doubt that disgraceful deficiencies in care led to Ms Halappanavars terrible death. I simply don't believe that the current system regarding termination of pregnancies was one of them.

Absolam

Absolam wrote: »

Not if you're claiming that someone would probably not have died had they amputated the limb before they knew it was infected.... because in that case you can say the same of anyone else who could have amputated an uninfected limb.

Your original point is still too general to be relevant (as echoed by my farcical amputation example). You suggested that 'any pregnancy at all that is aborted increases the likelihood, on balance of probability, that the potential mother will not die, because being pregnant is inherently more life threatening than not being pregnant'.

Which is of course a truism. Yet you attach it to a post discussing Boylan's utterly specific & non-general suggestion. Care to suggest why? It reads very much as though it's to diminish the value of his words. (especially given the preface of : 'Which doesn't really say a great deal').

I assume you'll agree that he wasn't discussing 'any pregnancy at all' though, given that he was discussing a specific situation where the prognosis of the pregnancy was extremely bleak.

Absolam wrote: »

Dr Boylans statement that Ms Halappanavars life was highly likely on the balance on probability to have been saved by an abortion was predicated on the abortion taking place before there was a risk to Ms Halappanavars life.
Further, her obgyn, Dr Astbury quite correctly showed no reluctance in scheduling an abortion once she believed it would address a risk to her patients life; the tragedy was that due to the rapid onset of sepsis which had gone unremarked due to insufficiently clear protocols in place for the management of sepsis, it was at that stage, unbeknownst to Dr Astbury, already too late to save Ms Halappanavars life.

I have no doubt that disgraceful deficiencies in care led to Ms Halappanavars terrible death. I simply don't believe that the current system regarding termination of pregnancies was one of them.

Let's try the amputation analogy once more.
A person presents, at a hospital with a limb that is not immediately posing a threat directly to their life, but which at the time of presentation is extremely likely to be utterly un-salvageable, and unfortunately never likely to be salvageable.

The universally recommended (outside of the state) treatment is amputation of the limb so as to avert any potential difficulties which might arise.

However the law in this state, declares that amputation can only occur once that limb becomes a threat to the person's life, or is devoid of any signs of life itself.

In this state, that person is then asked to wait, in pain, until such a time as that limb does present such a threat to their life that the universally recommended treatment is allowed to be undertaken.

Of course, there will be times when that treatment will be successful, and it would be remiss to simply pretend otherwise. However, in the case we're discussing, the treatment was utterly unsuccessful.

One might feel it's entirely fair to suggest that the law which dictates that we must wait until the patient's prognosis is bleak enough so as to undertake a procedure has a higher burden of blame for the outcome than the insufficient treatment that occurred downstream of that law.
A manager who makes a bad decision which is then badly implement usually faces more blame than the employee who failed to implement the choice.

Boylan's point was not a trivial truism as you presented it to be, his point was that our current 'regime' can only perpetuate the scenario described. And surely we can all see the inhumanity and risk in that?

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

One might feel it's entirely fair to suggest that the law which dictates that we must wait until the patient's prognosis is bleak enough so as to undertake a procedure has a higher burden of blame for the outcome than the insufficient treatment that occurred downstream of that law.
A manager who makes a bad decision which is then badly implement usually faces more blame than the employee who failed to implement the choice.

Boylan's point was not a trivial truism as you presented it to be, his point was that our current 'regime' can only perpetuate the scenario described. And surely we can all see the inhumanity and risk in that?

Can I repeat and amplify this please?

A health system which chooses to ban certain medical interventions unless and until the patient's life in under threat - as opposed to "just" their health - takes on a much greater responsibility for the final outcome of that situation than one where the patient has the final say in his/her treatment.

In fact that is the thinking behind the very concept of informed consent, something which forms the basis of all ethical medical treatment nowadays. With a very few exceptions - one being the treatment of pregnant and childbearing women in Ireland.

When you remove a woman's right to what is the internationally recognized appropriate medical treatment for her medical condition, fig leaves such as "well maybe she would have died anyway" are a poor excuse. In fact I'd say they fool only those who are determined to be fooled anyway.


Addendum: I'd also point out that Absolam's description of a naive Dr Astbury in ignorance of Mrs Halappanavar's septic state is unconvincing in the extreme. This has all been thrashed out many times before, so someone who still continues to cling to the anti-choice narrative that ignores various facts such as the multiple checking and rechecking of the fetal heartbeat specifically in order to ascertain whether or not a D and E could be carried out is, to put it bluntly, lying at this point.
Though I believe the technical term is "mental reservation".

sinead88

Even if her situation hadn't been life threatening, she was in extreme pain and begging for an abortion. As the baby was definitely going to die anyways, wouldn't the humane thing to do be to offer an abortion? She shouldn't have had to be in agony and under extreme stress for days, against her will. This isn't how I would want to be treated in hospital.

Not a NSA agent

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wouldnt be able to reduce it completely but we already have limits on what kind of advice you can be given, whats to prevent reducing that even further?

Might not be able to prevent all women from travelling while pregnant but these people view going abroad to have an abortion to be the same as bringing your 5 year old there and killing them. Bring in some law that allows women who have had abortions be punished.

Fighting the EU would be a great chance for them to protect the children killed every year.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

sinead88

How would anyone enforce that though? I suppose we could all start informing on friends and family members Soviet Bloc style, or introduce mandatory pregnancy tests at airports.

lazygal

sinead88 wrote: »

How would anyone enforce that though? I suppose we could all start informing on friends and family members Soviet Bloc style, or introduce mandatory pregnancy tests at airports.

An injunction was obtained to compel a 14 year old pregnant rape victim to return to Ireland to protect the unborn. The state would find a way.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Cabaal

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Women would simply not inform anyone they are pregnant, esp not a doctor. Short of having mandatory pregnancy screenings for all women of a certain age no one would be none the wiser.

How would anyone be able to prove a person had an abortion? How would they prove they were even pregnant in the first case?

What happens if a women does keep it secret and perhaps a decade later people find out, should she be jailed for what the pro life crowd see as murder.?

Im sure its important to them that a warning is sent out to all women, even those that are forced to travel in secret in relation to fatal fetal abnormalities.

volchitsa

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's easy to prove that someone has been pregnant though, and when there is no baby to show at the end of it, women may well find themselves accused by default. Even when they've had a miscarriage, not an abortion, as already happens in some of the other terrific catholic/pro-life hellholes such as El Salvador.
http://www.latimes.com/world/great-reads/la-fg-c1-el-salvador-women-20150415-story.html#page=1

sinead88

I honestly don't think that could ever happen in Ireland. The situation here is very bad, but not that bad. It would only be a tiny fringe of religious maniacs who would advocate for that kind of regime. The majority of moderate pro life supporters would be horrified I'd say.

Loafing Oaf

sinead88 wrote: »

I honestly don't think that could ever happen in Ireland. The situation here is very bad, but not that bad. It would only be a tiny fringe of religious maniacs who would advocate for that kind of regime. The majority of moderate pro life supporters would be horrified I'd say.

Because they're hypocrites and don't really believe their own rhetoric...

Let's be honest here though folks, there's no way repeal of the 8th will lead to a more restrictive abortion regime in any respect, even though some lily-livered Fine Gaelers terrified of being labelled 'pro-abortion' are trying to pretend repeal would somehow improve the situation from both pro-choice and pro-life perspectives...

eviltwin

sinead88 wrote: »

I honestly don't think that could ever happen in Ireland. The situation here is very bad, but not that bad. It would only be a tiny fringe of religious maniacs who would advocate for that kind of regime. The majority of moderate pro life supporters would be horrified I'd say.

I never thought we'd see the day women who had lost babies would be charged in the US or that a woman's foetus would be made independent of her as has happened. What's happening is that its being targeted to women in prison or those from very disadvantaged backgrounds who people normally don't really care about so its easy to ignore until such time it starts to impact on the majority.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.