Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

antiskeptic

iguana wrote: »

Posting this kind of shît literally proves that you know that the embryo is not a human being. There are women on this thread who have posted about their miscarriages. Miscarriages of wanted pregnancies. If you really truly believe that the embryo is a human child, we are women who have been bereaved of real human children. And yet on this thread, with women who have lost these real human children, you are posting horrifically graphic, massively exaggerated descriptions of our children's deaths. Bullshît you think that embryos are children because nobody but an absolute abusive psychopath would post like that to bereaved parents.:mad:

So either you are an abusive pyschopath or a bullshîtting liar. Either way your posts are worthy of nothing but absolute derision because they are clearly not coming from a place of love or concern for life. They come from nothing other than a desire to hurt and control. Thankfully the harder you try, the more the mask of concern slips and the awful motive becomes clear.

The thread is about aborting of life. Blood and death are essential components of the process. Unless you demand the discussion be sanitised (just as our meat is) then I'm not sure how to proceed.

Miscarriage of wanted children is related but at the other end of the spectrum to the vast majority of abortions - which deals with unwanted children. Which is the topic.

What do you suggest and why?

end of the road

King Mob wrote: »

How about you and Antiskeptic address this uncomfortable reality?: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107310093&postcount=7419

i addressed it. the claim she made about the poster is a lie.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

i addressed it. the claim she made about the poster is a lie.

That's not addressing it. That's just an assertion.
And again, ironic that you moan about some one lying.

Is abortion murder?
Why did you lie about saying that it was?
This question isn't going away.
Be honest and address this, or at least explain why you are ignoring it.

Otherwise, you shouldn't accuse people of ignoring stuff as it makes you look like a hypocritical coward.

Sean.3516

Hi Guys,
New to this thread and new to boards.ie. Basically on here to try and develop my views on this a bit. Basically i’m Pro life up to the point where the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy.

I’m completely open to a good, civil debate and perhaps even changing my mind,
Thanks

Cabaal

antiskeptic wrote: »

Google it: 'foetus alive after abortion'. There's any number of copies of it - 16 secs long. Puddle in latex gloved hand.

I saw same vid but longer, where the person is prodding and flipping this human life around in his/her hand.

Foetus about the length of your thumb so around the 12 week mark.

Oh yeah I read about, it was a nurse who went home from work and found a fetus in his pocket.

Wait, what... You mean the nurse was a lie?

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Seeing dismembered arms and legs lying in puddles of blood, as if a portion of chicken wings, does tend to sharpen one's pencil however. Seeing a 10cm long mini-person wriggling around in the palm of someones hand, like a fish out of water, is very disturbing.

So is, I can tell you from multiple first hand experience, witnessing an autopsy of a fully grown adult human. Because generally it is outside our experience. Forget humans in fact, most people can not even bring themselves to watch their own meat getting slaughtered.

So your little narrative here, told in contrived language to make it sound worse than it actually is and make implications that are not valid, says little to nothing about abortion at all. Rather it says everything about the human reaction to blood and innards, and how that reaction appears not to be rationally mediated by differences in context.

I think we can be forgiven for thinking we can guess what you WANT description of abortion to say, especially when you contrive to flower up the language with a clear agenda, but it simply does not say what you think it does. Peoples emotional reaction to abortion says nothing more about abortion than their emotional reaction to animal slaughter says about the eating of meat. And in fact I quite happily kept on eating my ham turkey and cheese sandwich yesterday while reading your description of abortion and it did not actually put me off one bite.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I just thought it telling that after all the arguments about sentience, number of neurons, viability and the like, the advice, when rubber meets road is "don't look". For to look is to usurp those arguments in a stroke.

Except that is blatantly and entirely untrue. There is nothing that one sees, when one does actually look, that in anyway even MEETS the sentience based arguments, let alone actually usurps them in even the smallest way.

Quite the exact opposite is true in fact, as the sentience based approach to moral and ethical arguments actively tells us on a rational basis why such corpses say nothing at all morally or ethically, nor should they. So rather than "usurp" the arguments, whether you realize it or not you are actually making the arguments for me.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

Both parts of your statement can't be true, so one part must be nonsense.

I do not think either is nonsense at all, rather I think both are just somewhat incomplete.

A nervous system in a 10 week old fetus (when the majority of abortions actually occur) is present and in development. It is far from complete however.

Further it is not actually connected to anything that is in any way "experiencing" the stimulus the nervous system is picking up and transmitting. Mainly because there is no "there" there to even connect to in the first place yet.

recedite wrote: »

Are we going to argue now about whether a wiggle is a wriggle?

I would say something with that level of nervous system development can very much "wriggle". I would however say that, given the implications of the word the user above contrived to use, such an entity can not "writhe".

So no need to equivocate over wiggle and wriggle really. But given words like "writhe" imply actual pain or discomfort, which is why the user clearly contrived to select for such a word, is something we very much can.

recedite wrote: »

FWIW I have never looked at an abortion video, and never looked at the pictures of aborted foetuses up close. Nor did I ever look at one of those decapitation videos that the Islamists post on the internet.

And I have. Multiple times. Isn't it kinda cute we have an anti abortion poster here therefore who is accusing us pro choice people of hiding from the reality of abortion when in fact here we have an anti abortion poster who actively is, and a pro choice poster who actively is not?

The truth is that it is often the anti abortion people hiding from the reality of abortion. Both by not actually moving to witness one, to not actually acknowledging the very relevant differences between what is aborted and sentient creatures to whom we should afford rights and moral and ethical concerns.

Rather they contrive to use words like "writhing" to attempt to use emotion to imply attributes to a 10 week old fetus that it does not have. Specifically attributes that WOULD mediate moral and ethical concern if the fetus did in fact have them.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

abortion on demand is bad however so your medical procedures aren't comparible.

To you. However you have not yet actually shown a single argument showing how and why is ACTUALLY is bad. You just assert it to be so and then run away. Periodically choosing to lie that you did make the arguments, despite being entirely unable to cite a single place where you have.

But still waiting for you to LINK to the argument you yesterday claimed clearly to have previously made. Cant do it can ya? Quelle Suprise. Just like the time you claimed to have responded to one specific post of mine, then you ran away when you could not link to where you had. The lies simply do not stop from you.

end of the road wrote: »

he isn't no . just giving the reality.

Except yes he is, and there is little reality in the hyperbole he used. For example the contrived use of the word "writhing". That word suggests pain or discomfort. Yet there is nothing in a fetus aborted before 20 weeks that COULD be feeling actual pain or discomfort.

So the hyperbole in question is related to the user contriving to use words that imply and suggest attributes that are wholly and entirely absent. And you denying that reality, just like you denying the reality of having called abortion "murder" multiple times despite later claiming never to have done so, does not make that reality go away.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Basically i’m Pro life up to the point where the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy.

I’m completely open to a good, civil debate and perhaps even changing my mind

Sure no problem if that is what you want. I think the first place to start that conversation would be with a simple "why?". Why do you hold that position? What is, for example, your moral and ethical issue with the termination of a 10 week old fetus?

aloyisious

There's a story in today's irish Indo of an award of €1.8 million award by the High Court to a woman here who didn't get an abortion after an incorrect test result. The following is a precis of the case from the Indo article. I haven't put up a link as others here can google the Indo for the story themselves or buy the paper. The judge whe heard the case has issued a privacy order in respect of the identity of the woman and child. A mother who is a carrier of a rare genetic condition - and who claimed she was deprived of her right to travel for an abortion - has settled the first ever wrongful birth case here for an interim payment of €1.8m.

The woman's child was born with the same disabling condition after a test on the foetus for that condition came back with a normal result.

The case is the first wrongful birth case based upon the right to travel to succeed at the High Court.

The mother had planned to exercise her constitutional right to travel to Britain for an abortion if the test had shown her unborn child had the same debilitating genetic condition, the High Court heard.

The child was born with the condition and needs 24-hour care. Because of the incorrect test, the mother claimed she was deprived of the ability to have an informed consent and to make an informed choice in respect of the continuance of her pregnancy.

volchitsa

aloyisious wrote: »

There's a story in today's irish Indo of an award of €1.8 million award by the High Court to a woman here who didn't get an abortion after an incorrect test result. The following is a precis of the case from the Indo article. I haven't put up a link as others here can google the Indo for the story themselves or buy the paper. The judge whe heard the case has issued a privacy order in respect of the identity of the woman and child. A mother who is a carrier of a rare genetic condition - and who claimed she was deprived of her right to travel for an abortion - has settled the first ever wrongful birth case here for an interim payment of €1.8m.

The woman's child was born with the same disabling condition after a test on the foetus for that condition came back with a normal result.

The case is the first wrongful birth case based upon the right to travel to succeed at the High Court.

The mother had planned to exercise her constitutional right to travel to Britain for an abortion if the test had shown her unborn child had the same debilitating genetic condition, the High Court heard.

The child was born with the condition and needs 24-hour care. Because of the incorrect test, the mother claimed she was deprived of the ability to have an informed consent and to make an informed choice in respect of the continuance of her pregnancy.

Your summary contains a significant discrepancy with the story in the Indo : the results didn't come back normal, they came back abnormal, but the family were told, by telephone that they were normal.

Knowing that the hospital had been notified that the couple intended to travel for an abortion if the results were bad, it's hard not to suspect that the misinformation may have been deliberate.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/18m-payment-for-mother-who-didnt-get-abortion-after-incorrect-test-result-37033590.html

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

Your summary contains a significant discrepancy with the story in the Indo : the results didn't come back normal, they came back abnormal, but the family were told, by telephone that they were normal.

Knowing that the hospital had been notified that the couple intended to travel for an abortion if the results were bad, it's hard not to suspect that the misinformation may have been deliberate.

The report is a bit cryptic on this point. She told OLCH of her intention; the test was carried out at the Rotunda; it's not clear which hospital notified her of the results.

(Indeed, it's not actually clear that it was either hospital; in theory it could have been, say, her GP or a private consultant. But she's reported as suing both hospitals, and there's no suggestion that she sued anyone else, so I'm guessing that it was one or other hospital that miscommunicated the result to her.)

Fortunately for the mother in this case, she didn't have to prove that there was any malice, intention, ideological motivation, etc on the part of either hospital; all she had to prove was that the test result was miscommunicated to her.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

The report is a bit cryptic on this point. She told OLCH of her intention; the test was carried out at the Rotunda; it's not clear which hospital notified her of the results.

(Indeed, it's not actually clear that it was either hospital; in theory it could have been, say, her GP or a private consultant. But she's reported as suing both hospitals, and there's no suggestion that she sued anyone else, so I'm guessing that it was one or other hospital that miscommunicated the result to her.)

Fortunately for the mother in this case, she didn't have to prove that there was any malice, intention, ideological motivation, etc on the part of either hospital; all she had to prove was that the test result was miscommunicated to her.

Those tests are often done in the UK which is why I was wondering about the claim that the results "came back normal". I don't know where the tests for that anomaly would have been done, but in any case only Irish organisations are being named it seems.

It's also interesting that such a payment has never happened elsewhere - another example of the 8th amendment actually bringing in a constitutional right to abortion where none existed before?

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

Those tests are often done in the UK which is why I was wondering about the claim that the results "came back normal". I don't know where the tests for that anomaly would have been done, but in any case only Irish organisations are being named it seems.

The report specifies that the test was done in the Rotunda.

Blood tests are often sent off to be analysed, particularly if specialist analysis is needed, and in that case the blood can be taken anywhere and the sample may to go anywhere in the EU, or even further afield. But a test like amniocentesis requires specialist administration and does have a non-trivial morbidity rate, so you want to go somewhere where there is an experienced practitioner. This is possibly why the patient was referred to the Rotunda. It's not a test that OLCH would have much reason to provide, so they probably don't provide it at all.

(I'm not saying that the test was an amniocentesis; just that it may have been a test like that, requiring specialist administration.)

volchitsa wrote: »

It's also interesting that such a payment has never happened elsewhere - another example of the 8th amendment actually bringing in a constitutional right to abortion where none existed before?

I think it may be incorrect to say that such a payment has never happened elsewhere. Wikipedia has a page on such cases, including discussion of approaches to the measurement of damages.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think it may be incorrect to say that such a payment has never happened elsewhere. Wikipedia has a page on such cases, including discussion of approaches to the measurement of damages.

Not on the grounds of a constitutional right to abortion though, is my understanding.

lazygal

volchitsa wrote: »

Those tests are often done in the UK which is why I was wondering about the claim that the results "came back normal". I don't know where the tests for that anomaly would have been done, but in any case only Irish organisations are being named it seems.

It's also interesting that such a payment has never happened elsewhere - another example of the 8th amendment actually bringing in a constitutional right to abortion where none existed before?

If the test this woman had was the harmony test, the results would have been processed in the UK or the US. I had the test and my consultant telephoned me with the results, and we then got a copy of the results in the post. I had follow up testing via amniocentesis and the fluid was sent to Glasgow for analysis. I got the initial results (the test aimed to check three trimsomies first and then a fuller test of all possible chromosone issues) via telephone from my consultant and the second lot of results via phone from a nurse manager who was present when the amniocentesis took place. There's also a paper copy of the full results on my file for this pregnancy. I wonder if the woman ever sought paper records of her results? AFAICR they initially came through by fax, and then paper records were sent. I also understand that even in the UK tests can be sent abroad for analysis for logistical reasons.

ETA at an antenatal appointment with my consultant after she told us the results she confirmed that the possible abnormality had been ruled out and that all the results would be on my file. It was a very open process.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

Not on the grounds of a constitutional right to abortion though, is my understanding.

Oh, right.

I don't think this does much to establish a constitutional right to abortion. It was a settlement of a case, so not a court decision, and while one side said they settled the case in light of the outcome of the referendum, the judge ruling the settlement reportedly said that he couldn't see what the referendum outcome had to do with it (on which point I think he's right).

Nor do I think the referendum gives much scope for arguing that there is a constitutional right to abortion. On the contrary, it says that the Oireachtas can make provision by law for the termination of pregnancies, which means they say when you can, and when you can't, terminate. I think if you went to the Supreme Court arguing that the power explicitly conferred on the Oireachtas was limited by an implied right to abortion, you'd get short shrift. The whole point of the exercise was to take the regulation of abortion out of the Constitution and put it in the hands of the legislature (where, IMO, it belongs).

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

Blood tests are often sent off to be analysed, particularly if specialist analysis is needed, and in that case the blood can be taken anywhere and the sample may to go anywhere in the EU, or even further afield. But a test like amniocentesis requires specialist administration and does have a non-trivial morbidity rate, so you want to go somewhere where there is an experienced practitioner. This is possibly why the patient was referred to the Rotunda. It's not a test that OLCH would have much reason to provide, so they probably don't provide it at all.

OLOL has an obstetrics unit and it is the main hospital in the area for that purpose. I suspect that "ethos" creeps into the matter at this point. The Rotunda always had a completely different attitude to these things, for example it was willing to sterilise women and routinely gave out contraception advice, unlike Our Lady Of Lourdes hospital and Holles St. That's because Rotunda was originally "a protestant hospital". Epesiotomy was a common procedure in OLOL but rare in the Rotunda. Generally that procedure was perceived to leave women disabled but still fertile. So its not that OLOL have no reason to provide the test, its that they have no policy to provide it.



We are left in the dark as to the all important question of whether Rotunda transmitted the correct test result to OLOL in this instance. The taxpayer has settled the matter out of court, and as a result the taxpayer will remain blissfully ignorant as to who was negligent, and why.
I suspect the mother herself does not know either, so she named both hospitals in the legal action.


Also I agree with the judge that the recent referendum result is just a red herring or a smokescreen. The mother had signalled her intention to travel for an abortion in the event of a positive test result. The referendum had no effect on that right.

Mr Justice Kevin Cross has ordered no detail can be published that would identify the mother and child. The mother had sued the Rotunda Hospital, Dublin, and Our Lady's Children's Hospital, Dublin. Full liability in the case was conceded by letter on June 13 last.
The letter stated that "in the particular circumstances of this case and in light of the outcome of the recent referendum repealing the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution", liability was conceded and the public policy defence was withdrawn.

Mr Justice Cross, noting liability had been conceded, said he accepted that but he would have thought the result of the referendum had nothing to do with it.

seamus

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think this does much to establish a constitutional right to abortion.

Well, no, but the right is there. There is an explicit right to travel for the purposes of having an abortion.

I think in this case the implication was that the couple had informed the various clinicians of their intention to travel if the news wasn't good. And then when they were told everything was OK, this wasn't a mistake - someone had deliberately lied to them so that they wouldn't go and get an abortion.

This is not explicitly said, but it is implied. Had this been a genuine error, then there was no constitutional violation. The constitutional violation only comes about if the misinformation was deliberate.

Nor do I think the referendum gives much scope for arguing that there is a constitutional right to abortion.

In constitutional terms, the referendum actually slightly lessens rights in some respects - it explicitly removes the right to travel. The law can be structured to make abortion legal in Ireland, but make it illegal to travel. Practicalities of enforcing it aside, the referendum removes that explicit right to travel for an abortion.

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

Well, no, but the right is there. There is an explicit right to travel for the purposes of having an abortion.

I think in this case the implication was that the couple had informed the various clinicians of their intention to travel if the news wasn't good. And then when they were told everything was OK, this wasn't a mistake - someone had deliberately lied to them so that they wouldn't go and get an abortion.

This is not explicitly said, but it is implied. Had this been a genuine error, then there was no constitutional violation. The constitutional violation only comes about if the misinformation was deliberate.

In constitutional terms, the referendum actually slightly lessens rights in some respects - it explicitly removes the right to travel. The law can be structured to make abortion legal in Ireland, but make it illegal to travel. Practicalities of enforcing it aside, the referendum removes that explicit right to travel for an abortion.

how so? the referendum was about removing one particular clause in our constitution. How does it also remove the 13th and 14th amendments?

seamus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how so? the referendum was about removing one particular clause in our constitution. How does it also remove the 13th and 14th amendments?

The 13th and 14th Amendments, amended that clause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-sixth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill_2018#Proposed_change_to_the_text

recedite

seamus wrote: »

In constitutional terms, the referendum actually slightly lessens rights in some respects - it explicitly removes the right to travel. The law can be structured to make abortion legal in Ireland, but make it illegal to travel. Practicalities of enforcing it aside, the referendum removes that explicit right to travel for an abortion.

None of that is correct. There was always a right to travel, for any reason, and there still is.

There is no "constitutional right to an abortion" following the recent referendum.

lazygal

seamus wrote: »

The 13th and 14th Amendments, amended that clause.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-sixth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill_2018#Proposed_change_to_the_text

That doesn't mean they were removed as rights. Those rights aren't contingent on the retention of the eighth. The legislation on the right to travel and information and the POLDP Act haven't been struck down as constitutional and remain the current law on abortion in Ireland.

Also, the Bill on the 36th amendment hasn't been signed yet due to court challenges so technically the eighth amendment is still in place until the Bill becomes an Act.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

None of that is correct. There was always a right to travel, for any reason, and there still is.

Where in the constitution does that exist?

lazygal wrote: »

That doesn't mean they were removed as rights. Those rights aren't contingent on the retention of the eighth.

Constitutionally they are. The X case established that there was no constitutional right to travel for an abortion. That right had to be inserted.

Now that it's been removed, the constitutional right to travel - explicitly for an abortion - will cease to exist.

And I'm good with that. It's shameful that we ever had to put it in.

lazygal

seamus wrote: »

Where in the constitution does that exist?Constitutionally they are. The X case established that there was no constitutional right to travel for an abortion. That right had to be inserted.

Now that it's been removed, the constitutional right to travel - explicitly for an abortion - will cease to exist.

And I'm good with that. It's shameful that we ever had to put it in.

You're mistaken. The 13th and 14th amendments will continue to exist, they are rights in and of themselves, albeit that they required a vote due to the eighth amendment. There was no legal proof offered by anyone that removing the eighth directly removed the 13th and 14th amendments. They'll continue to be in the constitution, no matter how irrelevant they may be now.

seamus

lazygal wrote: »

You're mistaken. The 13th and 14th amendments will continue to exist, they are rights in and of themselves, albeit that they required a vote due to the eighth amendment. There was no legal proof offered by anyone that removing the eighth directly removed the 13th and 14th amendments. They'll continue to be in the constitution, no matter how irrelevant they may be now.

I'm afraid that's not correct.

I know the campaign was to "repeal the eighth", but that's not just what the bill is doing.

The bill replaces the entirety of section 40.3.3. That is the 8th and the 13th and 14th amendments. Which don't make sense without the 8th anyway.

https://refcom2018.refcom.ie/about-the-referendum/the-proposed-change/

The Present Article 40.3.3
The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right. This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state. This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

The Proposed Article 40.3.3
Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy.

After the 36th is signed into being, the explicit right to travel for abortion, is gone. As is the right to obtain or publish information about abortion services outside of the state.

Just to be clear of course that this does not mean that travelling for abortion or publishing information becomes illegal automatically. They will remain implicitly legal (by virtue of not being illegal), but not explicitly defended as a constitutional right.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

After the 36th is signed into being, the explicit right to travel for abortion, is gone. As is the right to obtain or publish information about abortion services outside of the state.

I think you know you're being a bit mischievous here, and that's why you put in the word "explicit" ie you tacitly admit those rights are not really gone.
From the repealed 8th...

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state. This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

"Shall not limit" means that those mentioned rights already existed, and will not be limited by the 8th.
Removing the 8th means those rights still wont be limited. So in other words; no change there. Its a double negative.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

None of that is correct. There was always a right to travel, for any reason, and there still is.

Except if you want to go to Dignitas and the local guards get wind of it and feel like threatening you.

BTW, you are confusing Our Lady's Childrens' Hospital (Crumlin, which has a genetic counselling unit) and Our Lady of Lourdes (Drogheda, aka death trap central.)

Now why the genetic counselling unit would be in a childrens' hospital, rather than the Rotunda, Holles St or the Coombe is a bit of a puzzler.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

I think you know you're being a bit mischievous here, and that's why you put in the word "explicit" ie you tacitly admit those rights are not really gone.

I'm being precise.

There is no explicit, constitutional right to travel. There is no universal right to travel - an individual's freedom to travel can be limited by courts, or the law, or by another constitutional article.

You have frequently argued in this thread that the general right to travel exists, but have never once provided any indication of where this right comes from.

The answer is that this freedom is implicit; it will generally be upheld by the courts but can be limited where necessary.

But it is not constitutionally protected, unlike the right to travel for an abortion.

Removing the 8th means those rights still wont be limited. So in other words; no change there. Its a double negative.

There is a change. The change is that those rights can be limited. Under the 13th, the right to travel for an abortion cannot be limited.

EDIT:
Just to clarify, in case you think I'm being obtuse, mischevious or nit-picking about this:

Before the referendum: The government cannot make it illegal to travel for an abortion
After the referendum: The government can make it illegal to travel for an abortion

They won't. It's inhumane, illogical and impractical. But it's a fact that an explicit, protected right, is being removed.

lazygal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Except if you want to go to Dignitas and the local guards get wind of it and feel like threatening you.

BTW, you are confusing Our Lady's Childrens' Hospital (Crumlin, which has a genetic counselling unit) and Our Lady of Lourdes (Drogheda, aka death trap central.)

Now why the genetic counselling unit would be in a childrens' hospital, rather than the Rotunda, Holles St or the Coombe is a bit of a puzzler.

AFAIK the expertise in a children's hospital as regards genetic conditions would be more in depth than doctors who specialise in foetal medicine. My consultant specialises in foetal medicine but wouldn't have been able to diagnose a genetic condition which in many cases won't be done until a child is born. And many people only know they're a carrier for a genetic illness once a child has been born already.