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

Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Options
1…2021232526…124

Comments

  • Options
    #662
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    hinault wrote: »
    Would you go to an optician to diagnose why your experiencing heart palpitations?

    Quackery.

    Why are you calling dentistry quackery? Why use that word?


  • Options
    #663
    SpaceSasqwatch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 768 ✭✭✭SpaceSasqwatch


    Jayop wrote: »
    The good roads the Nazi's built were used to bring people to death camps.

    I might be wrong but I think it was the german rail network that got them to the camps.


  • Options
    #664
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »
    I might be wrong but I think it was the german rail network that got them to the camps.

    I was just recycling a poor analogy.


  • Options
    #665
    otpmb
    Registered Users Posts: 84 ✭✭otpmb


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Of course there is and its in tune with the X Case legislation. Where there is a direct threat to the life of the mother, a termination of pregnancy is wholly justifiable, if the doctors deem it necessary.

    Guidelines-
    "Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and
    substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the mother."

    But, there's no further information as to what constitutes a real or substantial risk to life, do you not think that this is vague?
    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Abortion friendly doctors such as the Master of Holles Street has claimed doctors are 'afraid' to terminate a pregnancy.

    Follow the guidelines Rhona and you'll have nothing to fear.

    Surely we have something to fear, the guidelines are very vague, a "real and substantial risk" could mean anything from a 1% risk of death to a 100% chance of death. If I went for an operation I would think a .001% chance of death was a "real and substantial risk" to my life, whereas other people might think a 10% chance of death was a "real and substantial risk" to their life. Where do doctors draw the line? Who provides this information?


  • Options
    #666
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    hinault wrote: »
    Would you go to an optician to diagnose why your experiencing heart palpitations?

    Quackery.

    would you defer to a politician (or a constitutional amendment) when problems with a pregnancy arise?

    Quackery.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #667
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    Delirium wrote: »
    would you defer to a politician (or a constitutional amendment) when problems with a pregnancy arise?

    Quackery.

    Or to a solicitor/judge as the case was with the woman who was being kept as a living incubator on life support.


  • Options
    #668
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Delirium wrote: »
    would you defer to a politician (or a constitutional amendment) when problems with a pregnancy arise?

    Quackery.

    Defer to the law of the land

    Why did you change your username?


  • Options
    #669
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Jayop wrote: »
    Yeah it's well known around the world how easy it is for the lower classes in the US to gain access to healthcare.

    As I said, Republicans will pour a fortune into such programmes if it will mean putting PP out of business.


  • Options
    #670
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    hinault wrote: »
    Defer to the law of the land
    Much rather medical advice from doctors myself tbh.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #671
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    otpmb wrote: »
    If I went for an operation I would think a .001% chance of death was a "real and substantial risk" to my life, whereas other people might think a 10% chance of death was a "real and substantial risk" to their life. Where do doctors draw the line? Who provides this information?

    Obviously when the clinicians are of the opinion that without a termination taking place, the mother will die.

    Nowt vague about it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #672
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    As I said, Republicans will pour a fortune into such programmes if it will mean putting PP out of business.

    Will they heck. The republicans have spent the last 5 years trying to undo the affordable healthcare bill which provides health services to the poor and lower classes. They've tried pretty much every tactic and will continue to do so because their corporate paymasters demand it from them.

    Yet against that backdrop you think that they're going to fill the void left by PP if it was to shut up shop to help the poor to gain access to service? That's some imagination.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Opposition_and_resistance


  • Options
    #673
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Obviously when the clinicians are of the opinion that without a termination taking place, the mother will die.

    Nowt vague about it.

    It's not a line drawn on the patients chart where you can say 100% yes or no that an abortion will save her life or not getting one will kill her. It's percentages and likelyhoods. What percentage or what likelyhood is enough to avoid the doctor being prosecuted or struck off?


  • Options
    #674
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭hinault


    Delirium wrote: »
    Much rather medical advice from doctors myself tbh.

    Doctors are required to adhere to the law of the land also.

    Would you go to an optician to diagnose why your experiencing heart palpitations too?


  • Options
    #675
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,545 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Delirium wrote: »
    would you defer to a politician (or a constitutional amendment) when problems with a pregnancy arise?

    Quackery.

    Why not, they defer to a bunch of celibate men thousands of miles away all of the time.


  • Options
    #676
    otpmb
    Registered Users Posts: 84 ✭✭otpmb


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Obviously when the clinicians are of the opinion that without a termination taking place, the mother will die.

    Nowt vague about it.

    So if there's a 50% chance that the mother will die, without a termination taking place, what happens? Nobody knows if the mother will die, but it is likely.


  • Options
    #677
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    hinault wrote: »
    Doctors are required to adhere to the law of the land also.
    sure. but the law should reflect medical realities rather than what we have with the 8th amendment.
    Would you go to an optician to diagnose why your experiencing heart palpitations too?
    No, for much the same reason I wouldn't ask a politican. Certainly don't think we should have a scenario where a doctor is legally prohibited from treating until the heart trouble is at some subjective level of danger (as we currently have regarding abortion).

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #678
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,501 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Delirium wrote: »
    sure. but the law should reflect medical realities rather than what we have with the 8th amendment.

    No, for much the same reason I wouldn't ask a politican. Certainly don't think we should have a scenario where a doctor is legally prohibited from treating until the heart trouble is at some subjective level of danger (as we currently have regarding abortion).

    Absolutely. But let's remember that this "would you ask a ..." thing began here with the fact that Savita Halappanavar was a dentist. We're not talking about asking a random paramedic in the street for their opinion about someone else.

    The point is that an obstetric team apparently incapable of identifying even a wellknown risk to miscarrying women really needs to overcome their shocking lack of skills in other ways - and one good way is listening to the patient herself - particularly a patient with paramedical training such as a pharmacist or a dentist would have.

    How can that possibly be a controversial thing to suggest?


  • Options
    #679
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Jayop wrote: »
    Will they heck. The republicans have spent the last 5 years trying to undo the affordable healthcare bill which provides health services to the poor and lower classes. They've tried pretty much every tactic and will continue to do so because their corporate paymasters demand it from them.

    Yet against that backdrop you think that they're going to fill the void left by PP if it was to shut up shop to help the poor to gain access to service? That's some imagination.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Opposition_and_resistance

    no chance.

    The Republicans hatred of PP is one of their few noble aspects.

    They will leave no stone unturned in putting them out of business.


  • Options
    #680
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Jayop wrote: »
    It's not a line drawn on the patients chart where you can say 100% yes or no that an abortion will save her life or not getting one will kill her. It's percentages and likelyhoods. What percentage or what likelyhood is enough to avoid the doctor being prosecuted or struck off?

    If there's no direct threat and a termination takes place, a striking off is fully justified.


  • Options
    #681
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Absolutely. But let's remember that this "would you ask a ..." thing began here with the fact that Savita Halappanavar was a dentist. We're not talking about asking a random paramedic in the street for their opinion about someone else.

    The point is that an obstetric team apparently incapable of identifying even a wellknown risk to miscarrying women really needs to overcome their shocking lack of skills in other ways - and one good way is listening to the patient herself - particularly a patient with paramedical training such as a pharmacist or a dentist would have.

    How can that possibly be a controversial thing to suggest?

    Will you ever allow Savita to rest in peace?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #682
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,501 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    I have no problem with some forms of birth control that can and should be provided from Federal or State sources. PP doesn't have a monopoly.

    When someone has to carefully avoid answering a question in such a byzantine manner as you do, they are usually practicing a high degree of mental reservation.

    Any chance you would feel able to say whether these "some forms" that meet your approval could come under the term "artificial contraception" or is this approval limited to Vatican-approved methods of family planning?


  • Options
    #683
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,501 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Will you ever allow Savita to rest in peace?

    I didn't call her a quack, that was one of your pals.


  • Options
    #684
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    If there's no direct threat and a termination takes place, a striking off is fully justified.

    Yeah but as we've repeatedly said, where is the line drawn. If it a 10% chance of the mother dying, a 20%, a 50%, 100%?

    If it's 100% then a woman with a 98% chance of dying without an abortion should be left to take her chances?


  • Options
    #685
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,501 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Jayop wrote: »
    Yeah but as we've repeatedly said, where is the line drawn. If it a 10% chance of the mother dying, a 20%, a 50%, 100%?

    If it's 100% then a woman with a 98% chance of dying without an abortion should be left to take her chances?

    Two points : Dr Astbury testified in the investigation into Savita Halappanavar's death that her understanding was that the risk of death for the mother had first to be greater than 50% (which means that when this kind of situation arises, one woman in two is likely to die - and in practice not all of those can always be saved, even with intervention).

    The other thing is that this is true even when there is no chance of saving the fetus - so that any permanent harm to the woman's health cannot be used as a reason for speedy intervention, even when the fetus is known to be dying.

    Surely that alone is completely unacceptable? To allow a woman to be permanently mutilated for no practical reason? Why is anyone defending this? Worse - why does this appear to be accepted as not even worth protesting about, so that the anti-choice brigade are rarely even asked to defend it, because the media in Ireland seem to be quite ok with it?


  • Options
    #686
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Two points : Dr Astbury testified in the investigation into Savita Halappanavar's death that her understanding was that the risk of death for the mother had first to be greater than 50% (which means that when this kind of situation arises, one woman in two is likely to die - and in practice not all of those can always be saved, even with intervention).

    The other thing is that this is true even when there is no chance of saving the fetus - so that any permanent harm to the woman's health cannot be used as a reason for speedy intervention, even when the fetus is known to be dying.

    Surely that alone is completely unacceptable? To allow a woman to be permanently mutilated for no practical reason? Why is anyone defending this? Worse - why does this appear to be accepted as not even worth protesting about, so that the anti-choice brigade are rarely even asked to defend it, because the media in Ireland seem to be quite ok with it?

    It's scandalous, much more scandalous than whatever allegations started this thread.


  • Options
    #687
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,501 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Jayop wrote: »
    It's scandalous, much more scandalous than whatever allegations started this thread.

    It really is. And it's a direct result of the law in Ireland, which for us posters here boards.ie should surely be of more direct concern than unproven allegations about an American organization that doesn't even exist here?


  • Options
    #688
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    volchitsa wrote: »
    It really is. And it's a direct result of the law in Ireland, which for us posters here boards.ie should surely be of more direct concern than unproven allegations about an American organization that doesn't even exist here?

    Oh it is, but there's no chance of any change till after the next election and if FG are voted in there's no chance of meaningful change for another 5 years either.

    A SF or Labour led coalition with left wing independents is the only way the law will be properly changed and a proper referendum put to the people. Since Labour are screwed it looks like SF are the only ones likely to be able to do anything about it.


  • Options
    #689
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    Jayop wrote: »
    Yeah but as we've repeatedly said, where is the line drawn. If it a 10% chance of the mother dying, a 20%, a 50%, 100%?

    If it's 100% then a woman with a 98% chance of dying without an abortion should be left to take her chances?

    Where is this percentage calcluator that is at the disposal to doctors to measure probability of death?

    We trust our doctors to act in good faith in making the call. If they believed the termination was the appropriate procedure to save the mother's life from a direct threat, they have nothing to fear.


  • Options
    #690
    Black Menorca
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,572 ✭✭✭Black Menorca


    volchitsa wrote: »
    When someone has to carefully avoid answering a question in such a byzantine manner as you do, they are usually practicing a high degree of mental reservation.

    Any chance you would feel able to say whether these "some forms" that meet your approval could come under the term "artificial contraception" or is this approval limited to Vatican-approved methods of family planning?

    I'm not the arbiter of Federal birth control programmes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #691
    Jayop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,388 ✭✭✭✭Jayop


    Black Menorca wrote: »
    Where is this percentage calcluator that is at the disposal to doctors to measure probability of death?

    We trust our doctors to act in good faith in making the call. If they believed the termination was the appropriate procedure to save the mother's life from a direct threat, they have nothing to fear.

    I've been told the answer is 50%. So if there's a less than 50% chance of the woman dying then tough, leave her to it.


Advertisement