Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

antiskeptic

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

The overwhelming conclusion of the committee was that it would be effectively impossible to legislate for abortion in cases of rape/incest without broad liberalisation of the law.

The only option was to introduce abortion on demand.

We could put man on the moon, but we couldn't do better than this.

If repeal fails, it will be because this pup pup wasn't able to fly.

_Dara_

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I am not the one being disrespectful.

What's disrespectful is suggesting that a woman died because of the 8th when in actual fact she died from medical mismanagement. Her doctor stated that had she known about Savita’s blood results on Monday or the Tuesday (taken on the Sunday) she would have had no issue terminating Savita’s pregnancy and the 8th would in no way have prevented her from doing so. In fact she did order one as soon as it became clear to her that Savita was very ill and that's why Savita was in the operating theater when she miscarried (mere hours after it was made clear to her how serious Savita's condition was).

Many women have treatment for sepsis when pregnant in Ireland. Sam Coulter Smith, master of the Rotunda for years, said that he has personally terminated many women's pregnancies that had been diagnosed with sepsis and never felt the 8th was restricting him in treating those women.

That the sepsis developed was a direct consequence of the 8th amendment. It was known for certain that she would miscarry but while the heartbeat was strong, they couldn’t carry out the termination. Sepsis then developed. I don’t know if you realise how dangerous sepsis is. Treating it in a more timely manner would not have guaranteed her survival. It is very fast-moving. I developed septicaemia in my early 20s. They moved fast to treat but I am still very lucky to be here. Avoiding development of sepsis should have been of paramount importance. Not scrambling to treat it once it had developed. She died of septic shock. What caused her to develop sepsis was the delay in terminating her doomed pregnancy.

The high horse brigade

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/councillor-sex-slavery-will-be-normalised-if-8th-amendment-is-repealed-36886060.html

Holy ****, where do we get these gobsh1tes
Probably belongs in the funny thread

end of the road

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So when an initiative lacks the support of those around you and looks like it would be hard to follow through, you are happy to abort your own support for it?

i don't abort my support for it, but i recognise it's not going to happen so i don't become vocal over the issue.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Seriously though, who cares if it's hard to actually stop? We could still make it illegal just to send a message to society (abortion pills are illegal despite them being easily ordered online daily).
Either you just like dominating women's lives and controlling their choices, or you really want to save babies. Either way, don't you think that you should do more than the absolute bare minimum to achieve your goals?

of course, but one also has to be practical about what and how much they can do. i'm not interested in controling anyone, just preventing them as much as is practical from harming others, including the unborn.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Circumstances including being able to afford a trip to the UK?

yes, ideally traveling abroad to procure an abortion would be illegal. it's not however, and it won't be unfortunately. so, i have to try and deal with the issue of abortion on demand here in my country.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Lets say a child, 4 or 5, gets injured and needs some organ transplant to survive. Lets say, their mother happens to be a match. Should their mother be forced to donate, or can they have that choice?

she shouldn't be forced to donate her organs no . however, she would not be allowed to simply kill off that child. the unborn has to fully rely on the mother until birth, but i believe she should not be able to kill off that unbornb human being either unless there is an extreme reason requiring it to happen.

antiskeptic

_Dara_ wrote: »

That the sepsis developed was a direct consequence of the 8th amendment. It was known for certain that she would miscarry but while the heartbeat was strong, they couldn’t carry out the termination. Sepsis then developed. I don’t know if you realise how dangerous sepsis is. Treating it in a more timely manner would not have guaranteed her survival. It is very fast-moving. I developed septicaemia in my early 20s. They moved fast to treat but I am still very lucky to be here. Avoiding development of sepsis should have been of paramount importance. Not scrambling to treat it once it had developed. She died of septic shock. What caused her to develop sepsis was the delay in terminating her doomed pregnancy.

The Coroners Report on the HSE website

Overall the Investigation team found three key causal factors.

1. Inadequate assessment and monitoring of Ms. Halappanavar that would have enabled the clinical team in UHG to recognise and respond to the signs that her condition was deteriorating. Ms. Halappanavar’s deteriorating condition was due to infection associated with a failure to devise and follow a plan of care for her that was satisfactorily cognisant of the facts that:

the most likely cause of her inevitable miscarriage was infection and
the risk of infection and sepsis increased with time following admission and especially following the spontaneous rupture of her membranes.

2. Failure to offer all management options to Ms. Halappanavar who was experiencing inevitable miscarriage of an early second trimester pregnancy where the risk to her was increasing with time from the time that her membranes had ruptured.

3. UHG’s non-adherence to clinical guidelines relating to the prompt and effective management of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock from when it was first diagnosed.

Could you tell me where the eighth or any consequence of the eighth is mentioned or implied?

"Failure to offer all management options" presumably means the management options where there but weren't employed as they ought to have been.


There is also this:

There is immediate and urgent requirement for a clear statement of the legal context in which clinical professional judgement can be exercised in the best medical welfare interests of patients.

The existence of the eighth doesn't preclude there being clarity about how to act a persons medical interest. There has been ample commentary from medics saying the eighth doesn't at all tie their hands. Are they to be disbelieved?

Outlaw Pete

_Dara_ wrote: »

That the sepsis developed was a direct consequence of the 8th amendment.

That's just simply not true....

It was known for certain that she would miscarry but while the heartbeat was strong, they couldn’t carry out the termination.

1) it been known Savita would inevitably miscarry does not therefore mean a termination was needed and 2) it doesn't matter how strong a fetal heartbeat is when a real and substantial risk of loss of a woman’s life is suspected as the 8th permits an abortion in such circumstances.

I don’t know if you realise how dangerous sepsis is.

We're talking about a woman who died. I'm aware.

Treating it in a more timely manner would not have guaranteed her survival. It is very fast-moving.

Course not but it's not about treating it in a timely manner, it's about discovering it's existence in a timely manner, which is something that was not done.

What caused her to develop sepsis was the delay in terminating her doomed pregnancy.

But the cause of the delay was not the 8th, it was medical misadventure:

The view of the investigation team is that infection/sepsis was present but not recognised at this time and there may have been possibilities for identifying deterioration due to infection by earlier closer monitoring and investigations of some subtle symptoms and signs of infection. Use of a guideline for the management of inevitable miscarriage of second trimester pregnancy and use of an Obstetric Early Warning Score chart may have been helpful in enabling staff to focus more specifically on the signs of infection and sepsis and the changing clinical situation.

The investigation team considers that the fact that the (modified) Obstetric Early Warning Score (OEWS) Chart was not used for pregnant patients in the Gynaecology ward contributed to the difficulty and delay in the diagnosis and management of infection and sepsis in this case.

The investigation team considers that there was a lack of clarity about who was responsible for following up and acting on these blood test results. The investigation team identified that the information about who is responsible for following up on blood test results must be instantly specified in guidelines and training. It is the duty of the doctor leading the clinical assessment of a patient to review all test results. If this was done in this case, the elevated white cell count would in all probability have prompted more clinical investigations.

Some staff members stated at interview that they were not aware that a lactate test could be done in the blood gas analyser (on the labour ward) which takes less than five minutes. Knowledge and results of the lactate might possibly have expedited immediate and aggressive management preventing the patient reaching the next stage of septic shock with grave prognosis.

The failure to appreciate the developing sepsis by established criteria, and querying the source of the infection when it should have been clear that it was the uterus (i.e. the fact that the patient's membranes had ruptured over 48 hours earlier and there was a foul smelling vaginal discharge with lower abdominal tenderness as documented by SH02) delayed active intervention.

You see, the error people keep making is that they don't appreciate that as far as her doctor was concerned, Savita was doing okay and indeed she told Savita that should her condition deteriorate, they would have to terminate even if there was a heartbeat. The MAIN issue was quite clearly not diagnosing the sepsis in a timely fashion. As soon as it was, a termination was ordered.

I of course appreciate that clarity on the 8th was called for, given how they perceived certain comments in interviews, but Savita's doctor stated clearly that she would have had no problem considering a termination had she been aware of Savita's results on the Monday or Tuesday. The 8th would not have prevented that and indeed, does not prevent it given that many women in Ireland with sepsis have had terminations.

But even so, I still would have voted to repeal had it been about replacing the 8th so as to make the law crystal clear with regards to health, or even worsen of health to the degree that it would drastically effect a woman's ongoing quality of life, or indeed shorten it and to also provide for very serious ffas, but I will not vote yes to making elective abortions legal in this country and put to death thousands of healthy babies and that is what a yes vote will do.

Our abortion rate is at least 50% of what it would/will be if elective abortion was legal here and even if it wasn't, I don't trust humans with the task of deciding which babies should live or die now after seeing the effect that tests such as NIPT have had. I support therapeutic abortions where necessary. When abortion is a genuine medical procedure. Not merely when it's just being referred to as one.

Hotblack Desiato

Outlaw Pete, there is one reason and one reason only I did not reply to you - you are on my ignore list. So type what you want, I won't be reading.

recedite

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

The overwhelming conclusion of the committee was that it would be effectively impossible to legislate for abortion in cases of rape/incest without broad liberalisation of the law.

What about "the morning after pill"?
The courts have already determined that the 8th could only apply after implantation of the embryo into the mothers uterus, which means she would have had some time to think about the circumstances of the conception, and what exactly happened.
So while preventing the implantation of a fertised embryo could be considered "abortifacient" in logical terms, and in Canon Law terms, it is not according to Irish secular law.

So, either the committee did not understand the situation, or they intended all along to use rape as the thin end of the wedge, to force through the "abortion on demand" up to 12 weeks, which they were also seeking.

_Dara_

Well, Outlaw Pete, we’re not going to agree. I think the information points to skittishness around the 8th delaying things to a point where sepsis developed. An independent medical professional cited the 8th amendment as a factor. That never gets mentioned. Independent opinion is important as it is impartial.

Fortunately, I don’t pin my belief that the 8th should be repealed on Savita’s case alone. I have many reasons.

I have two friends who had abortions. Both early 20s, early career. Their lives would have been hamstrung had they continued with the pregnancies. They have achieved so much that they wouldn’t have if they had a child a raise. THAT’S a good enough reason for me. No extreme cases needed for me to latch onto. Phew.

antiskeptic

_Dara_ wrote: »

I have many reasons.

I have two friends who had abortions. Both early 20s, early career. Their lives would have been hamstrung had they continued with the pregnancies. They have achieved so much that they wouldn’t have if they had a child a raise. THAT’S a good enough reason for me.

Any reason is good enough for you, given that any reason at all will be sufficient to obtain an abortion.

That's a pretty low bar you're signing up to.

Outlaw Pete

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Outlaw Pete, there is one reason and one reason only I did not reply to you - you are on my ignore list. So type what you want, I won't be reading.

Not to worry, it's quite common for those with prochoice views to stick their fingers in their ears:

https://twitter.com/repeal_shield

_Dara_

antiskeptic wrote: »

Any reason is good enough for you, given that any reason at all will be sufficient to obtain an abortion.

That's a pretty low bar you're signing up to.

If you like. I’m happy in my position.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

from what i understand the constitutional amendment simply states the 8th cannot interfere and will not interfere with a pregnant woman's right to travel. so it's not a guaranteed right to travel for abortion specifically, just that the 8th cannot interfere with the right to travel.

That was due to an SC decision that a persons right to travel abroad could not be limited by the 8th, said ruling made after an abortion-issue reference was sent to it. The right to travel unbounded was then added to the constitution, I think by way of a new section to article 43, the same way the wording of the 8th amendment was added to the same article by the voter earlier.

recedite

_Dara_ wrote: »

I have two friends who had abortions. Both early 20s, early career. Their lives would have been hamstrung had they continued with the pregnancies. They have achieved so much that they wouldn’t have if they had a child a raise. THAT’S a good enough reason for me. No extreme cases needed for me to latch onto. Phew.

That's a more honest opinion now. None of this "But Savita..." or "But women's lives are being lost.."
You want abortion on demand introduced as a lifestyle choice.
And yes, the lives of your two friends would have changed, a lot.
In the past most women married early, they had kids, and they became mothers. They adapted their lifestyles because it was considered natural and normal.
Now and in the future many will be frustrated by years of failed and expensive fertility treatments because they have left it too late. Or they will choose never to bear or rear a child, and perhaps have plenty of time in a lonely old age to ponder what might have been.

Maybe there is a middle road, which involves contraception.

_Dara_

recedite wrote: »

That's a more honest opinion now. None of this "But Savita..." or "But women's lives are being lost.."
You want abortion on demand introduced as a lifestyle choice.
And yes, the lives of your two friends would have changed, a lot.
In the past most women married early, they had kids, and they became mothers. They adapted their lifestyles because it was considered natural and normal.
Now and in the future many will be frustrated by years of failed and expensive fertility treatments because they have left it too late. Or they will choose never to bear or rear a child, and perhaps have plenty of time in a lonely old age to ponder what might have been.

Maybe there is a middle road, which involves contraception.

‘Lifestyle choice’ is such a sneaky term. Like it’s a paint colour for your bedroom or switching to low-fat milk. This is motherhood - a lifelong huge emotional and financial commitment which is also a physical trial.

Luckily, trying to frame abortion in such a way is nakedly transparent in its intent.

And as a country we voted to allow women to travel - as a country that makes us okay with abortion. I hate NIMBYism though so I hope Yes succeeds. If it doesn’t, I’ll suck it up, safe in the knowledge that I’m no hypocrite.

recedite

_Dara_ wrote: »

This is motherhood - a lifelong huge emotional and financial commitment which is also a physical trial.

It is yes.
And respect to those who choose it, they are often undervalued. We all owe them a debt of gratitude. Not only their kids, and the men involved, and the grandparents, but their choice is vital for the health of society itself.

antiskeptic

_Dara_ wrote: »

‘Lifestyle choice’ is such a sneaky term. Like it’s a paint colour for your bedroom or switching to low-fat milk. This is motherhood - a lifelong huge emotional and financial commitment which is also a physical trial.

Luckily, trying to frame abortion in such a way is nakedly transparent in its intent.

And as a country we voted to allow women to travel - as a country that makes us okay with abortion. I hate NIMBYism though so I hope Yes succeeds. If it doesn’t, I’ll suck it up, safe in the knowledge that I’m no hypocrite.

Abortion. Because I'm worth it.

_Dara_

recedite wrote: »

It is yes.
And respect to those who choose it, they are often undervalued. We all owe them a debt of gratitude. Not only their kids, and the men involved, and the grandparents, but their choice is vital for the health of society itself.

Aye, indeed. And many women who choose it have had abortions. They’ve had abortions AND, later or earlier, become mothers. Luckily it’s not either or.

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

It is yes.
And respect to those who choose it, they are often undervalued. We all owe them a debt of gratitude. Not only their kids, and the men involved, and the grandparents, but their choice is vital for the health of society itself.

Somehow I don't think the health of society is going to uppermost in the target markets considerations.

end of the road

_Dara_ wrote: »

‘Lifestyle choice’ is such a sneaky term. Like it’s a paint colour for your bedroom or switching to low-fat milk. This is motherhood - a lifelong huge emotional and financial commitment which is also a physical trial.

Luckily, trying to frame abortion in such a way is nakedly transparent in its intent.

sadly though, sneaky or not, it is accurate.

_Dara_ wrote: »

‘And as a country we voted to allow women to travel - as a country that makes us okay with abortion. I hate NIMBYism though so I hope Yes succeeds. If it doesn’t, I’ll suck it up, safe in the knowledge that I’m no hypocrite.

i disagree, voting to insure an amendment of the constitution won't prevent a pregnant woman from traveling doesn't mean we are okay with abortion. legally procuring an abortion is just one of the bi-products of that vote, regretibly.

_Dara_

antiskeptic wrote: »

Abortion. Because I'm worth it.

I wasn’t expecting you to reinforce my point but thanks!

recedite

antiskeptic wrote: »

Somehow I don't think the health of society is going to uppermost in the target markets considerations.

That is true, but it should be said every now and again anyway.

Outlaw Pete

_Dara_ wrote: »

Well, Outlaw Pete, we’re not going to agree. I think the information points to skittishness around the 8th delaying things to a point where sepsis developed. An independent medical professional cited the 8th amendment as a factor. That never gets mentioned. Independent opinion is important as it is impartial.

In fairness now, we hear about his views all the time but here's some views we really don't hear enough of:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/eighth-did-not-stop-doctors-acting-to-save-me-36795994.html
https://www.herald.ie/news/doctor-advised-an-abortion-were-so-glad-we-said-no-29257245.html

I have two friends who had abortions. Both early 20s, early career. Their lives would have been hamstrung had they continued with the pregnancies. They have achieved so much that they wouldn’t have if they had a child a raise. THAT’S a good enough reason for me. No extreme cases needed for me to latch onto. Phew.

Sorry, but I'll never understand that logic. What if we discover twenty years after the event that a woman (or man) killed their newborn and buried them without anyone noticing and they're now leading a great life all these years later. Should the jury feel it therefore justifiable given how good their life has turned out? Course not. So then why do we do it with regards to lives ended through abortion? Makes no sense.

Anyway, here's a woman who had the opposite experience:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Z6Dn-GwYg

smacl

recedite wrote: »

It is yes.
And respect to those who choose it, they are often undervalued. We all owe them a debt of gratitude. Not only their kids, and the men involved, and the grandparents, but their choice is vital for the health of society itself.

While that's debatable, it's also a red herring. We're talking about those who choose not to give birth. The important word here is choice, and the right to choose should clearly be accorded to the pregnant woman.

antiskeptic

_Dara_ wrote: »

I wasn’t expecting you to reinforce my point but thanks!

I was assuming you'd detect the narcissistic undertones dripping from that particular ad campaign.

It appears you actually bought into it!

_Dara_

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

In fairness now, we hear about his views all the time but here's some views we really don't hear enough of:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/eighth-did-not-stop-doctors-acting-to-save-me-36795994.html
https://www.herald.ie/news/doctor-advised-an-abortion-were-so-glad-we-said-no-29257245.html



Sorry, but I'll never understand that logic. What if we discover twenty years after the event that a woman (or man) killed their newborn and buried them without anyone noticing and they're now leading a great life all these years later. Should the jury feel it therefore justifiable given how good their life has turned out? Course not. So then why do we do it with regards to lives ended through abortion? Makes no sense.

Anyway, here's a woman who had the opposite experience:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5Z6Dn-GwYg

That’s super for her. That’s the great thing about choice. I’m not giving Love Both any clicks though. Ta.

_Dara_

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was assuming you'd detect the narcissistic undertones dripping from that particular ad campaign.

It appears you actually bought into it!

Actually no. I rarely wear make up and I’m indifferent to beauty products. So try again. Or, you know, move on from this utterly pathetic tangent.

end of the road

smacl wrote: »

While that's debatable, it's also a red herring. We're talking about those who choose not to give birth. The important word here is choice, and the right to choose should clearly be accorded to the pregnant woman.

it already is . she can choose whatever she wants as long as she doesn't cause harm to others, in this case the unborn. i believe that to be very fair, and consistent with how born lives are treated in ireland.

_Dara_ wrote: »

That’s super for her. That’s the great thing about choice. I’m not giving Love Both any clicks though. Ta.

not the choice to kill though. that's not a good choice. not for the unborn anyway.

antiskeptic

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sorry, but I'll never understand that logic. What if we discover twenty years after the event that a woman (or man) killed their newborn and buried them without anyone noticing and they're now leading a great life all these years later. Should the jury feel it therefore justifiable given how good their life has turned out? Course not. So then why do we do it with regards to lives ended through abortion? Makes no sense.

*Yawn* The difference is that the life in the womb legally doesn't have to be considered a life if you don't want to consider it so.

antiskeptic

_Dara_ wrote: »

So try again. Or, you know, move on from this utterly pathetic tangent.

Why? Because you're worth it?