Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

Plumbthedepths

Charles Ingles wrote:

First, do no harm. As an important step in becoming a doctor, medical students must take the Hippocratic Oath. And one of the promises within that oath is “first, do no harm†(or “primum non nocere,†the Latin translation from the original Greek.)

Medical students do not take take the Hippocratic oath in Ireland.

nullzero

SusieBlue wrote: »

If you have a problem with my posts, feel free to report them.
The last post I would have made would have been when I was discussing Edwards syndrome a few posts ago.
I think you’ll find that the main culprits for bringing up repeal are those who are blaming the outcome of the case on repeal, and I am quite entitled to reply to said posts.
I have tried to get the thread back in topic, most recently when someone brought up when life begins & the right to life just a few minutes ago.

You're just getting snotty now.
I'm not suggesting your posts need to be reported, I'm just trying to understand what it is you're saying.

The majority of this thread has been sniping about repeal when it's of little relevance to what's being discussed. If you feel a sense of entitlement to waffle on go right ahead I don't mind you doing that but the fact remains that repeal isn't the issue in this case. You could take your arguments to PM (the irony of me saying that in these circumstances isn't lost on me) if you really wanted to go deep into it.

Mod-Banned

Phil.x

SusieBlue wrote: »

Yes but the question here is whether the parents were aware of that or not.
From the reports I’ve read, it seems they were not aware that the test wasn’t fully conclusive.
Hence their shock to learn their child did not infact have Edwards syndrome postmortem.

The point being at the time of obtaining the abortion, they believed their child conclusively had the condition, and that wasn’t the case. Why can’t you grasp that? That’s what the topic at hand is.

Well when you want to be one of the "first" to try out a new product, service or what's the latest fashion you should do a little research first or you could be unhappy with the results.

Spanish Eyes

Sooner the better a court case happens. Then it will be sub judice.

We should wait and see. But no, that will not satisfy some.

No one knows what happened here at all. Just speculation at the moment.

nullzero

Phil.x wrote: »

Well when you want to be one of the "first" to try out a new product, service or what's the latest fashion you should do a little research first or you could be unhappy with the results.

I don't believe that these people were motivated by that at all.

Phil.x

troyzer wrote: »

You're making the mistake of assuming that the 8th amendment prevented abortion and would have stopped this from happening.

It wouldn't have. It would have happened in England instead.

This was a horrible, horrible mistake. One which the 8th would have done nothing to prevent other than let people like yourself ignore the problems of exporting our problems.

How the f do you know that!

screamer

nullzero wrote: »

I think the parents may well have been led on this issue.
In this situation a doctor is supposed to be the person who offers the most reliable advise possible.
I take issue with some of the more "liberal" ideas surrounding abortion, but in a case of this type where the child will not survive I can empathise with the decision to seek a termination.
The fault isn't with the parents here, clearly there was scope for this situation to have been resolved properly further down the line. There was no reason to rush to a termination and that would appear to be the crux of the issue.

This is an issue of medical negligence, not a debate about the rights and wrongs of the repeal the eighth campaign.

We live in a world of information, at your fingertips. Does anyone just accept bad news from a doctor without thinking, I’ll look into it, I’ll check, try to educate myself? Get a second opinion elsewhere? That’s why they’re called second opinions. I’m not blaming the parents, but I’m baffled if they just took the doctors word for it.

Phil.x

Phil.x wrote: »

How the f do you know that!

Women have been going to England for years.

Ireland never admitted that to itself though.

Charles Ingles

Charles Ingles wrote: »

First, do no harm. As an important step in becoming a doctor, medical students must take the Hippocratic Oath. And one of the promises within that oath is “first, do no harm” (or “primum non nocere,” the Latin translation from the original Greek.)

Irish doctors don't take the Hippocratic Oath Charlie.

SusieBlue

nullzero wrote: »

You're just getting snotty now.
I'm not suggesting your posts need to be reported, I'm just trying to understand what it is you're saying.

The majority of this thread has been sniping about repeal when it's of little relevance to what's being discussed. If you feel a sense of entitlement to waffle on go right ahead I don't mind you doing that but the fact remains that repeal isn't the issue in this case. You could take your arguments to PM (the irony of me saying that in these circumstances isn't lost on me) if you really wanted to go deep into it.

People are blaming the outcome of this case on repeal, that’s why it’s being discussed. I know better than anyone that Repeal isn’t the issue in this case, but I’m not the one who keeps bringing it up.

Plumbthedepths

Phil.x wrote:

How the f do you know that!

You engaged in mindless assumption earlier, yet you get upset when someone else does it.

Phil.x

Phil.x wrote: »

How the f do you know that!

How do you know half the assumptions you're posting on here, you don't.

troyzer

Phil.x wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

You're making the mistake of assuming that the 8th amendment prevented abortion and would have stopped this from happening.

It wouldn't have. It would have happened in England instead.

This was a horrible, horrible mistake. One which the 8th would have done nothing to prevent other than let people like yourself ignore the problems of exporting our problems.

How the f do you know that!

Because that's been the overwhelming experience of couples given an FFA diagnosis. Many of us have been unable to avoid the family distress of a loved one coming back on the plane from England when they should never have had to.

Allowing couples to decide to terminate a pregnancy with little chance of life is the compassionate thing to do.

This really is a horrible situation. But nobody here is proposing anything that would have stopped it. These couples up until recently can and did go to England, most of them did not bring the foetus to term. Understandably so.

Maybe you'd prefer if we banned all abortion and fitted every pregnant woman with a GPS tracker and put her under house arrest?

Phil.x

nullzero wrote: »

I don't believe that these people were motivated by that at all.

Fully Agree, but you can bet your last penny they were given this option and with ireland now being all modern liberal and equal the3 found no wrong in that option.

SusieBlue

Phil.x wrote: »

Well when you want to be one of the "first" to try out a new product, service or what's the latest fashion you should do a little research first or you could be unhappy with the results.

I find it hard to believe that any parent would terminate a much wanted pregnancy at that gestation unless they categorically believed their child had a condition such as Edwards syndrome.
My own theory is that the conclusiveness of the test wasn’t properly explained to them, but only time will tell.

Abortion isn’t the ‘latest fashion’ & even suggesting that in regards to this case is in very poor taste.

jam_mac_jam

How disgusting to blame the parents. Jesus christ.

nullzero

SusieBlue wrote: »

People are blaming the outcome of this case on repeal, that’s why it’s being discussed. I know better than anyone that Repeal isn’t the issue in this case, but I’m not the one who keeps bringing it up.

But you're perpetuating it. This has gone into a twenty page plus thread, most of which has been off topic. You're responsible for what you post, nobody is changing their mind due to what anybody else here is saying.

screamer

SusieBlue wrote: »

People are blaming the outcome of this case on repeal, that’s why it’s being discussed. I know better than anyone that Repeal isn’t the issue in this case, but I’m not the one who keeps bringing it up.

Or maybe just maybe, we’ve had a period of rushed legislation and start to termination services following the repeal vote, and mistakes are being made???? Who knows if the couple had to travel to the UK would they have made the same decision? Would the more experienced services there have given them better advise?
To just say that this is nothing to do with repeal, is closing down opportunities for learning valuable lessons about what might have gone wrong since the repeal was enacted.

SusieBlue

nullzero wrote: »

But you're perpetuating it. This has gone into a twenty page plus thread, most of which has been off topic. You're responsible for what you post, nobody is changing their mind due to what anybody else here is saying.

Absolutely bizarre that you are attacking me for my responses to certain posts but have no issue with those who made the posts I’m replying to

nullzero

Phil.x wrote: »

Fully Agree, but you can bet your last penny they were given this option and with ireland now being all modern liberal and equal the3 found no wrong in that option.

I don't know if they should find wrong in that option when they are under the impression that their child wouldn't survive.

Like I said I take issue with the more "liberal" aspects of the abortion debate, but I can't honestly find fault with the parents in this case, or any others like it.

nullzero

SusieBlue wrote: »

Absolutely bizarre that you are attacking me for my responses to certain posts but have no issue with those who made the posts I’m replying to

I've criticised others here Susie, look back through my posts (some very recent ones, one you thanked).

SusieBlue

screamer wrote: »

Or maybe just maybe, we’ve had a period of rushed legislation and start to termination services following the repeal vote, and mistakes are being made???? Who knows if the couple had to travel to the UK would they have made the same decision? Would the more experienced services there have given them better advise?
To just say that this is nothing to do with repeal, is closing down opportunities for learning valuable lessons about what might have gone wrong since the repeal was enacted.

A mistake was made here, that’s for sure.
It’s looking like it was medical negligence and that the lack of conclusiveness wasn’t properly explained to the parents but only time will tell as to what actually happened.

I feel the legislation as it is is sufficient but the good thing is that now that the 8th has been removed from the constitution, we can now amend legislation with no need for a referendum. Again only time will tell as the legislation is put into practice.
I still don’t agree that repeal was to blame and I reject that this would never have happened if the abortion ban was still in place.

Mrs OBumble

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I'm curious why do people make stupid suggestions like this?

If ya think I'm saying to actually DO it ... can't help you there, suggest you avoid forums.

But the point is that plenty of people believe that they ARE carrying a baby not just a clump of cells, at 15 weeks, whether or not the abortion promoters agree.

If one of those people has a spontaneous abortion at 15 weeks, they will, rightly, be very upset if their loss is minimised.

Phil.x

nullzero wrote: »

I don't know if they should find wrong in that option when they are under the impression that their child wouldn't survive.

Like I said I take issue with the more "liberal" aspects of the abortion debate, but I can't honestly find fault with the parents in this case, or any others like it.

Ok, but why not give birth to the baby even if you're told it won't live, surely it can't be any worse than having an abortion.

pinkyeye

Phil.x wrote: »

Ok, but why not give birth to the baby even if you're told it won't live, surely it can't be any worse than having an abortion.

Says someone who has never experienced either and is never likely too either.

SusieBlue

Phil.x wrote: »

Ok, but why not give birth to the baby even if you're told it won't live, surely it can't be any worse than having an abortion.

It’s a very personal thing. Not everyone can go through the 9 months carrying the burden of knowing their baby is going to die at birth.

troyzer

Phil.x wrote: »

nullzero wrote: »

I don't know if they should find wrong in that option when they are under the impression that their child wouldn't survive.

Like I said I take issue with the more "liberal" aspects of the abortion debate, but I can't honestly find fault with the parents in this case, or any others like it.

Ok, but why not give birth to the baby even if you're told it won't live, surely it can't be any worse than having an abortion.

You can if you want. That's your CHOICE.

Some people wouldn't be able to bear it.

Phil.x

Phil.x wrote: »

Ok, but why not give birth to the baby even if you're told it won't live, surely it can't be any worse than having an abortion.

Your talking some amount of ****e really.

Phil.x

SusieBlue wrote: »

I still don’t agree that repeal was to blame and I reject that this would never have happened if the abortion ban was still in place.

But there would of being a better chance of the health baby surviving if abortion on demand wasn't offered,...... due to the couple having to travel to the uk, money, time in thinking, conscious, etc.

Is abortion an easier option than giving birth to a probable baby??

Blueshoe

It's not really a baby though. Didn't come out kicking and screaming

screamer

Phil.x wrote: »

Ok, but why not give birth to the baby even if you're told it won't live, surely it can't be any worse than having an abortion.

Dunno about that, that’s a real “walk a mile in their shoes” issue. For each couple either option is devestating, perhaps one a little less so than the other, depending on themselves. An awful situation with no good outcome either way.

Plumbthedepths

Mrs OBumble wrote:

But the point is that plenty of people believe that they ARE carrying a baby not just a clump of cells, at 15 weeks, whether or not the abortion promoters agree.

What someone believes and what is fact can be at odds. Btw as you can see I ignored your suggestion . Abortion promoters..hmm that's a new one.

amcalester

Phil.x wrote: »

But there would of being a better chance of the health baby surviving if abortion on demand wasn't offered,...... due to the couple having to travel to the uk, money, time in thinking, conscious, etc.

Is abortion an easier option than giving birth to a probable baby??

For some it is, who are you or I to say how much suffering another person should bear.

Phil.x

troyzer wrote: »

You can if you want. That's your CHOICE.

Some people wouldn't be able to bear it.

But that CHOICE was wrong........so now what? Blame others?

amcalester

Phil.x wrote: »

But that CHOICE was wrong........so now what? Blame others?

The choice wasn’t wrong, the information was wrong.

troyzer

Phil.x wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

You can if you want. That's your CHOICE.

Some people wouldn't be able to bear it.

But that CHOICE was wrong........so now what? Blame others?

In your opinion. Isn't it great that we can disagree and not restrict one another based on our own views?

The choice wasn't wrong with the information given. It was a personal choice that you have no right to tell them was wrong.

Phil.x

Phil.x wrote: »

But there would of being a better chance of the health baby surviving if abortion on demand wasn't offered,...... due to the couple having to travel to the uk, money, time in thinking, conscious, etc.

Is abortion an easier option than giving birth to a probable baby??

At least get your facts straight, after twelve weeks abortion is only allowed in the case of FFA and where the health or life of the mother is at risk, that is not abortion on demand.

Phil.x

amcalester wrote: »

The choice wasn’t wrong, the information was wrong.

The choice was wholly wrong, the couple chose the wrong option, there wasn't a gun placed to their heads on the choice of life or death!!

troyzer

DubInMeath wrote: »

Phil.x wrote: »

But there would of being a better chance of the health baby surviving if abortion on demand wasn't offered,...... due to the couple having to travel to the uk, money, time in thinking, conscious, etc.

Is abortion an easier option than giving birth to a probable baby??

At least get your facts straight, after twelve weeks abortion is only allowed in the case of FFA and where the health or life of the mother is at risk, that is not abortion on demand.

Just to add to this.

If the government had originally framed the 8th amendment debate purely in terms of life of the mother and FFA it probably would have passed with nearly 100% of the vote. And I don't think this is an exaggeration. Almost nobody was arguing for the status quo. Even the most hardcore pro lifers were mumbling about an amendment that would still protect the right to life but allow for limited circumstances.

Having a go at the people here (including myself) who are unapologetically pro choice is pointless. Even if we had all forgotten to vote that day, any referendum that would have allowed this tragedy to happen still would have passed with a stupidly large majority.

And again, even if it didn't, it still would have likely happened in England.

SusieBlue

Phil.x wrote: »

The choice was wholly wrong, the couple chose the wrong option, there wasn't a gun placed to their heads on the choice of life or death!!

Just because it was a choice you wouldn’t have made, doesn’t make it the wrong one.
They made the best choice for themselves with the information they had at hand.

Bredabe

screamer wrote: »

We live in a world of information, at your fingertips. Does anyone just accept bad news from a doctor without thinking, I’ll look into it, I’ll check, try to educate myself? Get a second opinion elsewhere? That’s why they’re called second opinions. I’m not blaming the parents, but I’m baffled if they just took the doctors word for it.

Some ppl have been brought up to assume a person in authority is never wrong, there may have been a comprehension or language barrier. These issues I feel sure will come out in the enquiry.

Then there are others who just go along with what other ppl tell them and never look at things for themselves*.

* Something I find really really strange in these times of readily accessible information, but ppl are who they are in this.

Phil.x

Phil.x wrote: »

The choice was wholly wrong, the couple chose the wrong option, there wasn't a gun placed to their heads on the choice of life or death!!

Would go on and **** off with yourself, apart from not actually having your facts right or deliberately posting bs, who are you to say anything about their decision.

Phil.x

troyzer wrote: »

In your opinion. Isn't it great that we can disagree and not restrict one another based on our own views?

The choice wasn't wrong with the information given. It was a personal choice that you have no right to tell them was wrong.

They didn't do their homework, the tests aren't conclusive, its that simple.

screamer

I’m just wondering, why test the foetus after termination.... what difference at that stage? and worse that there was no genetic defect found, why do that when the decision is just final and irreversible. I just don’t understand, it seems additionally cruel on the parents.

SusieBlue

Phil.x wrote: »

They didn't do their homework, the tests aren't conclusive, its that simple.

Unbelievable

troyzer

troyzer wrote: »

Just to add to this.

If the government had originally framed the 8th amendment debate purely in terms of life of the mother and FFA it probably would have passed with nearly 100% of the vote. And I don't think this is an exaggeration. Almost nobody was arguing for the status quo. Even the most hardcore pro lifers were mumbling about an amendment that would still protect the right to life but allow for limited circumstances.

Having a go at the people here (including myself) who are unapologetically pro choice is pointless. Even if we had all forgotten to vote that day, any referendum that would have allowed this tragedy to happen still would have passed with a stupidly large majority.

And again, even if it didn't, it still would have likely happened in England.

They only started mumbling about FFA and cases of rape when they seen the writing on the wall and that they were going to lose, even then the majority seen this for what it was, lies.

I've no doubt that some people who voted no might have voted yes iin the scenario you propose, but no it wouldn't have been a 100% yes vote.

Phil.x

SusieBlue wrote: »

Just because it was a choice you wouldn’t have made, doesn’t make it the wrong one.
They made the best choice for themselves with the information they had at hand.

They wanted the baby.......... they ended up choosing to cut short the baby's life............rather than check for sure that the baby they so badly wanted wouldn't survive.........that IS a bad choice.

troyzer

DubInMeath wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

Just to add to this.

If the government had originally framed the 8th amendment debate purely in terms of life of the mother and FFA it probably would have passed with nearly 100% of the vote. And I don't think this is an exaggeration. Almost nobody was arguing for the status quo. Even the most hardcore pro lifers were mumbling about an amendment that would still protect the right to life but allow for limited circumstances.

Having a go at the people here (including myself) who are unapologetically pro choice is pointless. Even if we had all forgotten to vote that day, any referendum that would have allowed this tragedy to happen still would have passed with a stupidly large majority.

And again, even if it didn't, it still would have likely happened in England.

They only started mumbling about FFA and cases of rape when they seen the writing on the wall and that they were going to lose, even then the majority seen this for what it was, lies.

I've no doubt that some people who voted no might have voted yes iin the scenario you propose, but no it wouldn't have been a 100% yes vote.

I don't think it would be 100%. But I think an 85-90% vote would be possible.

The percentage of people who think women should be forced to carry dead foetuses to term is vanishingly small.

SusieBlue

Phil.x wrote: »

They wanted the baby.......... they ended up choosing to cut short the baby's life............rather than check for sure that the baby they so badly wanted wouldn't survive.........that IS a bad choice.

You clearly don’t understand the concept of hindsight whatsoever.
The made a choice based on the information they had. A bit of compassion and respect for the situation they find themselves in wouldn’t go astay.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

You clearly don’t understand the concept of hindsight whatsoever.
The made a choice based on the information they had. A bit of compassion and respect for the situation they find themselves in wouldn’t go astay.

Compassion isn't something that a lot of pro lifers are known for, so your spitting into the wind here.