8th Amendment

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

Statistical syllogism does not lead to a fact based conclusion.

Funny that you reject your own argument when reflected back at you.

Black Menorca

volchitsa wrote: »

But it is. Several Obstetricians have said so, including Rhona Mahony. And the MMR, which only concerns maternal mortality, might not show that anyway.

What's Rhona's record on keeping her hospital clean and sterile?

am946745

SW wrote: »

Funny that you reject your own argument when reflected back at you.

Did I start out saying Ireland was unsafe for a Mother to have a child? That our laws were adding risk to the mother?

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

What about these who defend our Eight?

[....signatories of Dublin Declartion]

This was dealt with in another thread by oldrnwsr. Excellent worthwhile read.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

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.

am946745

DUBLIN DECLARATION ON MATERNAL HEALTHCARE
“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.”

http://www.dublindeclaration.com/signatories/

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

Did I start out saying Ireland was unsafe for a Mother to have a child? That our laws were adding risk to the mother?

No, and neither did I respond to the above in any way but rather to your use of stats to suggest that no abortion leads to lower MMR rates. Even though your own link shows that to be incorrect.

Black Menorca

am946745 wrote: »

DUBLIN DECLARATION ON MATERNAL HEALTHCARE
“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.”

http://www.dublindeclaration.com/signatories/

Gotta love the Dublin Declaration.

am946745

SW wrote: »

This was dealt with in another thread by oldrnwsr. Excellent worthwhile read.

Did I ever argue against delivering the child when a women is suffering from pre-eclamptic toxaemia? Doctors ALREADY carry out these procedures. The fact they do due diligence and check their facts before ending the pregnancy is good.

Our eight amendment is clear.. There is rights at both ends, but it does not constrain our medics to end a pregnancy to save the mothers life.

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

Did I ever argue against delivering the child when a women is suffering from pre-eclamptic toxaemia? Doctors ALREADY carry out these procedures. The fact they do due diligence and check they facts before ending the pregnancy is good.

Our eight amendment is clear.. There is rights at both ends, but it does not constrain our medics to end a pregnancy to save the mothers life.

is there a reason you seem to argue against something I haven't said? It's the second such post in minutes.

The post was to give information about the signatories of the declaration and to show that very few of the signatories (e.g 30 of 225 OBGYNs listed) are based in Ireland.

am946745

SW wrote: »

is there a reason you seem to argue against something I haven't said? It's the second such post in minutes.

The post was to give information about the signatories of the declaration and to show that very few of the signatories (e.g 30 of 225 OBGYNs listed) are based in Ireland.

So, non Irish are what ? Are they fake signatures or less qualified?

In case you haven't noticed there are a good number of non-Irish doctors now working in Irish Hospitals.

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

So, non Irish are what ? Are they fake signatures or less qualified?

Never said anything of the kind.

In case you haven't noticed there are a good number of non-Irish doctors now working in Irish Hospitals.

How did you get 'no foreign doctors work in Ireland' from 'doctors not based in Ireland'?

am946745

SW wrote: »

Never said anything of the kind.

How did you get 'no foreign doctors work in Ireland' from 'doctors not based in Ireland'?

What is the point you are making?

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

What is the point you are making?

Just wondering what is noteworthy of a declaration signed by a few hundred pro-life doctors, nurses from around the world. Especially when posted by someone who was recently decrying people posting biased links to support their argument.

am946745

SW wrote: »

Just wondering what is noteworthy of a declaration signed by a few hundred pro-life doctors, nurses from around the world. Especially when posted by someone who was recently decrying people posting biased links to support their argument.

So their qualifications mean nothing? As regards bias. well it seems its a case here of fight fire with fire.

conorh91

SW wrote: »

This was dealt with in another thread by oldrnwsr. Excellent worthwhile read.

Ehhm hugely selective quote rather, and ironically so, considering his criticism.

Because he ignores altogether names like :

Prof John Bonnar, former professor of Obstetrics & Gynaecology at Trinity College Dublin
Prof. Eamon O’Dwyer, Professor of Obstetrics & Gynaecology at NUIG
Dr. James Clinch, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Past Master of the Coombe Hospital, Dublin.
Dr. Dermot Mac Donald, MD, FACOG, FRCOG, FRCPI, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Past Master of National Maternity, Dublin.
Dr. John bermingham, Consultant Obstetrician at University Hospital in Waterford
Dr. Michael Brassil, MB BCh, FRCOG, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Portiuncula Hospital, Co. Galway.
Dr. Maureen Brennan, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist Retired, Dublin.
Dr. Eamon Mc Guinness, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, St. James Hospital, Dublin.
Dr. Naser Giumaa, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Portiuncula Hospital, Co. Galway.
Dr. Trevor Hayes, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, St. Lukes Hospital, Kilkenny.
Dr. Bartlomiej Kuzera, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Sims International Fertility Clinic, Dublin.
Dr. Subhash Kohli, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Retired, Kildare
Dr. John Monaghan, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Portiuncula Hospital, Co. Galway.
Dr. Vida Naciene, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Family Med Clinic, Clontarf, Dublin.
Dr. Eileen Reilly, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Galway Clinic, Galway.
Dr. Shobha Singh, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Midland Regional Hospital, Portlaoise.
Dr. Cyril Thornton, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Cork Clinic, Cork.

I'm not sure how many others on that list are operating in Ireland, but it's clearly substantial from that brief glance.

Delirium

am946745 wrote: »

So their qualifications mean nothing? As regards bias. well it seems its a case here of fight fire with fire.

no, I never said their qualifications (those of them that have relevant qualifications) mean nothing. Just that it's no surprise that a room full of pro-life advocates signed a document stating they oppose abortion.

Delirium

conorh91 wrote: »

Ehhm hugely selective quote rather, and ironically so, considering his criticism.

Because he ignores altogether names like :

Prof John Bonnar, former professor of Obstetrics & Gynaecology at Trinity College Dublin
Prof. Eamon O’Dwyer, Professor of Obstetrics & Gynaecology at NUIG
Dr. James Clinch, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Past Master of the Coombe Hospital, Dublin.
Dr. Dermot Mac Donald, MD, FACOG, FRCOG, FRCPI, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Past Master of National Maternity, Dublin.
Dr. John bermingham, Consultant Obstetrician at University Hospital in Waterford
Dr. Michael Brassil, MB BCh, FRCOG, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Portiuncula Hospital, Co. Galway.
Dr. Maureen Brennan, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist Retired, Dublin.
Dr. Eamon Mc Guinness, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, St. James Hospital, Dublin.
Dr. Naser Giumaa, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Portiuncula Hospital, Co. Galway.
Dr. Trevor Hayes, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, St. Lukes Hospital, Kilkenny.
Dr. Bartlomiej Kuzera, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Sims International Fertility Clinic, Dublin.
Dr. Subhash Kohli, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Retired, Kildare
Dr. John Monaghan, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Portiuncula Hospital, Co. Galway.
Dr. Vida Naciene, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Family Med Clinic, Clontarf, Dublin.
Dr. Eileen Reilly, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Galway Clinic, Galway.
Dr. Shobha Singh, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Midland Regional Hospital, Portlaoise.
Dr. Cyril Thornton, Consultant Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Cork Clinic, Cork.

I'm not sure how many others on that list are operating in Ireland, but it's clearly substantial from that brief glance.

The post stated that there were 30 active registered doctors in Ireland from a list of 225 OBYNs. I don't understand how you arrived at the conclusion he ignored the list you provided. They fall under the 30 he mentioned.

PopePalpatine

Black Menorca wrote: »

Gotta love the Dublin Declaration.

I find it hard to love something that's so full of crap.

conorh91

SW wrote: »

The post stated that there were 30 active registered doctors in Ireland from a list of 225 OBYNs.

OK well there are nowhere near that many of consultant obstetricians and gynecologists in Ireland. I think there are actually less than 100 consultant obstetricians and gynecologists registered in Ireland, so it's no surprise they're not all Irish.

It is clear that a substantial number of Irish experts in obstetrics and gynecology are in agreement that abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

It isn't clear what the rest of them think because it is impossible to infer anything from their silence, but I don't see how such a substantial proportion of experts operating in Irish hospitals can be dismissed.

PopePalpatine

Here's a bit more background info. Surprise, surprise, Youth Defence's Eoghan de Faoite organised it. :rolleyes:

K-9

am946745 wrote: »

Strange how our Maternal Mortality rate is lower than the UK.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=2223

Did ours take a big jump recently because of European standardized standards.

Put it this way, I don't think we have one of the safest maternity systems in the world anymore!

Delirium

conorh91 wrote: »

OK well there are nowhere near that many of consultant obstetricians and gynecologists in Ireland. I think there are actually less than 100 consultant obstetricians and gynecologists registered in Ireland, so it's no surprise they're not all Irish.

It is clear that a substantial number of Irish experts in obstetrics and gynecology are in agreement that abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

It isn't clear what the rest of them think because it is impossible to infer anything from their silence, but I don't see how such a substantial proportion of experts operating in Irish hospitals can be dismissed.

well considering that they term abortion as 'the purposeful destruction of the unborn', it is anything but clear. The 8th allows for abortion where there is a threat to the womans life. But the Dublin declaration would not agree that it is an abortion.

conorh91

PopePalpatine wrote:

Eoghan de Faoite organised it. :rolleyes:

So

I don't see where it says that, but it was chaired by the Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology in NUIG. Unless the Life Institute or some other nutcase religious group held them at ransom in a locked room and forced them to sign a document, I don't see how it has any bearing on their clinical judgment as experts and, in most cases, as Fellows of the Royal College of Obstetrics & Gynaecology.

It's clearly a reputable symposium, because the Royal College of Physicians awards its members 6 CME points (necessary ongoing training) for attending it.

Some seriously selective attitudes to evidence here. You'd probably be decrying detractors as being anti-science if the symposium had favored your personal opinion.

Delirium

FYI, conor, I didn't post what quoted me as posting. would appreciate if you correct the error.

conorh91

Apologies SW, the previous quote is now amended.

SW wrote: »

well considering that they term abortion as 'the purposeful destruction of the unborn', it is anything but clear.

I don't see anything unclear about it.

Surely it was obvious that a non-deliberate destruction of the unborn would refer to a situation such as the accidental death of the mother, say by accident or medical misadventure, and the subsequent loss of life of the unborn whose life is contingent upon his mother.

Delirium

conorh91 wrote: »

Apologies SW, the previous quote is now amended.

Cheers. Much obliged

I don't see anything unclear about it.

Surely it was obvious that a non-deliberate destruction of the unborn would refer to a situation such as the accidental death of the mother, say by accident or medical misadventure, and the subsequent loss of life of the unborn whose life is contingent upon his mother.

'Purposeful destruction of the unborn' would exclude abortions that are performed to save the life of the woman as permitted by the 8th amendment. The Dublin Declaration suggest there are no such abortions ever required to be carried out by doctors.

conorh91

SW wrote: »

'Purposeful destruction of the unborn' would exclude abortions that are performed to save the life of the woman as permitted by the 8th amendment. The Dublin Declaration suggest there are no such abortions ever required to be carried out by doctors.

Yes, that is exactly what it suggests. I think it's a shame that expert medical evidence of that nature was not made available to the Supreme Court in the X case.

There is no evidence of a mental health benefit to abortion. There just isn't.

It's hard to advance this point without seeming insensitive or cruel, but these are real women who are in serious risk because of their psychiatric state of mind we are talking about.

Unless one is of the opinion that suicide is a wise or rational response to a pregnancy, then one has to seriously consider the possibility that a woman who responds to pregnancy in that way is perhaps suffering from some underlying condition to which she is perhaps predisposed.

oscarBravo

conorh91 wrote: »

Unless one is of the opinion that suicide is a wise or rational response to a pregnancy, then one has to seriously consider the possibility that a woman who responds to pregnancy in that way is perhaps suffering from some underlying condition to which she is perhaps predisposed.

Hysteria, perhaps.

conorh91

oscarBravo wrote: »

Hysteria, perhaps.

No. I'd be grateful if you didn't caricature an opinion I am trying to advance sincerely.

oscarBravo

conorh91 wrote: »

No.

No? Well, I'm sure there's some other equally patronising reason that a man can explain to a woman as to why she's suicidal.

conorh91

oscarBravo wrote: »

No? Well, I'm sure there's some other equally patronising reason that a man can explain to a woman as to why she's suicidal.

Mental illness. It is acknowledged that individuals can be susceptible to mental illnesses which can be activated by traumatic events in their lives.

This is a serious issue and a small number of people, on both sides, are trying to discuss it like adults. You're trying to imply that I'm dismissing rape victims as hysterical. This is a sensitive topic. I'd like to talk to the adults without being caricatured in that way.

oscarBravo

conorh91 wrote: »

Mental illness. It is acknowledged that individuals can be susceptible to mental illnesses which can be activated by traumatic events in their lives.

This is a serious issue and a small number of people, on both sides, are trying to discuss it like adults. You're trying to imply that I'm dismissing rape victims as hysterical. This is a sensitive topic. I'd like to talk to the adults without being caricatured in that way.

If you don't want it to seem like you're dismissing rape victims as hysterical, perhaps you should think twice before suggesting that someone who's been raped, is pregnant and is being denied an abortion is irrational for contemplating suicide.

conorh91

oscarBravo wrote: »

perhaps you should think twice before suggesting that someone who's been raped, is pregnant and is being denied an abortion is irrational for contemplating suicide.

Perhaps you should read better.

I said one has to seriously consider that possibility.

I am uncomfortable with seeing suicide ideation as rational anytime it is observed. Especially in a situation where there is no evidence of a mental health benefit, and where a serious trauma has recently been experienced.

I don't discount it.

oscarBravo

conorh91 wrote: »

Perhaps you should read better.

I said one has to seriously consider that possibility.

That implies that it isn't considered.

I am uncomfortable with seeing suicide ideation as rational anytime it is observed. Especially in a situation where there is no evidence of a mental health benefit, and where a serious trauma has recently been experienced.

This echoes the rather bizarre tangent I've seen some pro-lifers go off on: the idea of abortion as a "treatment" for suicidal ideation. It's a complete fabrication on their part: nobody but them has ever suggested that it's any such thing.

The bottom line is that a woman shouldn't have to be at risk of death in order to make the choice not to be pregnant. We're talking about a much more fundamental question of personal bodily integrity than that.

pmasterson95

The "pro life" should just be rebranded "pro baby" or something bat**** like that. Pro life implies they actually care about lives. But they really dont give a flying **** about the mothers life, if the mother is alive, dead, depressed, dying, raped, assaulted, forced, suicidal, take your pick.
They just believe that she should shut up and do her job and give the world a baby. Most "pro life" ****e and bleatings actually completely disregards the mothers life.

conorh91

oscarBravo wrote: »

That implies that it isn't considered.

No it doesn't. I've no doubt that competent, well-respected professionals, just like those many medical experts mentioned in this thread, do consider the existence of an underlying mental illness when treating suicidal pregnant women.

However, there is scant evidence of that consideration in this thread, in my view.
Certain pro-choice posters are unwilling, or so I understand, to accept the absence of medical evidence showing that abortion reduces mental health risks. Some on the pro-choice side are willing to engage with that, to their credit.

You tried to characterize my position as being dismissive of rape victims as hysterical, and I find that particularly objectionable. Unlike the other pro-choice posters, who are making legitimate points, I don't see what you are adding to this debate except invective.

krankykitty

pmasterson95 wrote: »

The "pro life" should just be rebranded "pro baby" or something bat**** like that. Pro life implies they actually care about lives. But they really dont give a flying **** about the mothers life, if the mother is alive, dead, depressed, dying, raped, assaulted, forced, suicidal, take your pick.
They just believe that she should shut up and do her job and give the world a baby. Most "pro life" ****e and bleatings actually completely disregards the mothers life.

Its more accurate to say anti choice, I think. Everyone is pro life. The opposite to pro life is pro death. And in some cases, some "pro lifers" are actually not pro life of the mother.

pmasterson95

krankykitty wrote: »

Its more accurate to say anti choice, I think. Everyone is pro life. The opposite to pro life is pro death. And in some cases, some "pro lifers" are actually not pro life of the mother.

Very true actually.

oscarBravo

conorh91 wrote: »

You tried to characterize my position as being dismissive of rape victims as hysterical, and I find that particularly objectionable.

You introduced this straw man to the conversation:

conorh91 wrote: »

There is no evidence of a mental health benefit to abortion. There just isn't.

Nobody - nobody - has ever tried to make the case that there's a mental health benefit to abortion.

The whole question of leveraging suicide into the suite of risks to the life of the mother in order to work around the restrictions of the 8th amendment would be moot if we could keep the conversation focused on the core question, which is whether a woman has a right to choose not to be pregnant. All the red herrings of describing a blastocyst as a baby, or talking about abortion as a treatment for mental illness - these are "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" tactics.

Should a woman have the right to not be pregnant, or is pregnancy a duty that overrides her fundamental right to bodily integrity? That's the question.

Atlantis50

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Here you go babe x
Force is acceptable against woman to save baby.



Apparently a woman is a person to be respected until shes is pregnant and becomes sub human with no rights to her own body.

Nothing in those posts refers to using violence.

Have you found the link yet to support your claim that the hospital where the clinically dead pregnant woman resided was picketed by pro-life groups or are you making things up? :rolleyes:

Atlantis50

Despite multiple questions, those on the pro-choice side on this thread have consistently failed to state at what stage they believe the right to life of the unborn is engaged.

Kev W

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Despite multiple questions, those on the pro-choice side on this thread have consistently failed to state at what stage they believe the right to life of the unborn is engaged.

At the point where the fetus is viable outside the womb. I'm fairly sure that's been stated before.

Atlantis50

Kev W wrote: »

At the point where the fetus is viable outside the womb. I'm fairly sure that's been stated before.

Is this also the stage that the woman then loses her "bodily autonomy" that I see referred to so much on this thread?

traprunner

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Is this also the stage that the woman then loses her "bodily autonomy" that I see referred to so much on this thread?

She can stab herself in the stomach if she wishes. Better keep the knives hidden.

Atlantis50

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Is this also the stage that the woman then loses her "bodily autonomy" that I see referred to so much on this thread?

Why the inverted commas? Which bit of the term do you not understand?

Atlantis50

traprunner wrote: »

She can stab herself in the stomach if she wishes. Better keep the knives hidden.

Of course she can.

If it results in the death of the unborn, she may find herself prosecuted under Section 22 of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act:

Destruction of unborn human life
22. (1) It shall be an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life.
(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on indictment to
a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years, or both.
(3) A prosecution for an offence under this section may be brought only by or with the
consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Atlantis50

Deleted User wrote: »

Why the inverted commas? Which bit of the term do you not understand?

I'm quoting others on the thread who used the term.

When do you think the right to life of the unborn is engaged?

oscarBravo

Atlantis50 wrote: »

I'm quoting others on the thread who used the term.

Do you understand the term?

Atlantis50

Atlantis50 wrote: »

I'm quoting others on the thread who used the term.

I believe your post was the only one with the term in inverted commas.

Strange.

No Voter And Proud

Kev W wrote: »

At the point where the fetus is viable outside the womb. I'm fairly sure that's been stated before.

So an abortion is viable and moral at 23 weeks to you guys?