Abortion Discussion

Bannasidhe · 10-07-2013 4:50pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes as in a father on Christmas Eve may "choose" to take the money he had saved for his children's Christmas presents and gamble it away in the bookies. He may not "choose" to beat them on Christmas morning because they are upset.

So it is ok if this hypothetical father chooses to buy his children expensive goods rather than choosing to save the lives of starving children who he just saw on the news along with appeals for donations?

10-07-2013 4:50pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That is an important distinction you've made.

In the uk in 2011 close to 3,000 babies were terminated at 20 weeks or over. This is the same as number of people who died from the combined 9
11 attacks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/24/abortion-statistics-england-wales

This is not an insignificant number.

Under what grounds did the abortions occur? You should know, they've been posted multiple times

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Isn't it? What scientific tests take place to prove she is suicidal?

So you think she shows up, says "I'm suicidal", and they abort her baby on the spot? Don't ask her whether, say, she wants to keep the baby? Or why she's suicidal? Or whether there are other options?

And there are already places in the medical set-up where psychiatrists determine suicidal intention.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is there any reason to believe that the surgical methods of abortion that take place in all other "civilised" countries won't be used here?

Given that they don't have our 8th amendment, no, it's not worth even a cursory examination, never mind the hundred posts you've made on it.

All the while, you continue to fail to state what you think is going to happen, and what you have a problem with

oldrnwisr · 10-07-2013 4:50pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

125 children with a high proportion having severe disabilities for the rest of their lives. Disabilities that in most if not all cases could have been avoided and these children could have been born healthily and lived full and healthy lives - education, career, marriage, kids etc.

Can you not see the dilemma here?

Sorry BB, maybe you've linked to this previously but could you please substantiate the claim I've highlighted?

Brown Bomber · 10-07-2013 4:55pm

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Sorry BB, maybe you've linked to this previously but could you please substantiate the claim I've highlighted?

I'd be glad to oblige as I appreciate your civility.

However, although an extremely premature baby's chances of survival have risen, the same research also found the proportion of such infants who experience severe disability as a result has not changed. That stood at 18% in 1995 and was 19% in 2006, according to the research.

"Our findings show that more babies now survive being born too soon than ever before, which is testament to the highly-skilled and dedicated staff in our neonatal services", said Professor Neil Marlow, an MRC-funded academic at University College London's Institute for Women's Health and a co-author of both papers. "But as the number of children that survive pre-term birth continues to rise, so will the number who experience disability throughout their lives. This is likely to have an impact on the demand for health, education and social care services."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/05/survival-rates-premature-babies-rise

Mark Hamill · 10-07-2013 4:58pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That is an important distinction you've made.

In the uk in 2011 close to 3,000 babies were terminated at 20 weeks or over. This is the same as number of people who died from the combined 9
11 attacks.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/may/24/abortion-statistics-england-wales

This is not an insignificant number.

It is actually, when you convert it to percentage. 3000 abortions, out of 196,082, is 1.53%. You've been given the 1-2% prevalence rate for post-20 week abortions before (and its been explained that most of these abortions are on malformed or sick foetuses who weren't guaranteed any quality of life, if they survived). Emotively comparing the number to a terrorist attack is dishonest Brown Bomber, and shows that you are still ignoring every argument and piece of data presented to you.

Brown Bomber · 10-07-2013 5:00pm

28064212 wrote: »

Under what grounds did the abortions occur? You should know, they've been posted multiple times

And on what grounds should a 20 week plus abortion not take place in Ireland on request from a "suicidal" mother?

28064212 wrote: »

So you think she shows up, says "I'm suicidal", and they abort her baby on the spot? Don't ask her whether, say, she wants to keep the baby? Or why she's suicidal? Or whether there are other options?

And there are already places in the medical set-up where psychiatrists determine suicidal intention.

I assume by your failure to answer the question directly that there are in fact NO scientific tests that will take place to determine if a mother is suicidal or faking it?

28064212 wrote: »

Given that they don't have our 8th amendment, no, it's not worth even a cursory examination, never mind the hundred posts you've made on it.

All the while, you continue to fail to state what you think is going to happen, and what you have a problem with

Does the 8th amendment prohibit specific methods of abortion? Could you specify? If not, what is the reason that the UK's abortion methods won't be available here?

===

I don't know what is going to happen.

What I would like to see happen is no abortions beyond the point where foetal pain is a distinct possibility, so 18 weeks+. I would like to see a requirement where people who want to abort their babies first receive counselling and are fully aware of the implications of their actions. I would also like to see random investigations into the people who claimed "suicide" as to their actual mental health, in the manner of people who claim disability allowances receive. I would like to see the more barbaric forms of abortion outlawed. I would like to see that women who do get abortions not be stigmatised.

All of the above excludes extreme cases.

oldrnwisr · 10-07-2013 5:07pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'd be glad to oblige as I appreciate your civility.

However, although an extremely premature baby's chances of survival have risen, the same research also found the proportion of such infants who experience severe disability as a result has not changed. That stood at 18% in 1995 and was 19% in 2006, according to the research.

"Our findings show that more babies now survive being born too soon than ever before, which is testament to the highly-skilled and dedicated staff in our neonatal services", said Professor Neil Marlow, an MRC-funded academic at University College London's Institute for Women's Health and a co-author of both papers. "But as the number of children that survive pre-term birth continues to rise, so will the number who experience disability throughout their lives. This is likely to have an impact on the demand for health, education and social care services."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/05/survival-rates-premature-babies-rise

Thank you for that, BB.

While I'm not sure, having read the paper abstracts that the datasets are entirely comparable (i.e. premature birth is a medical emergency vs. a planned medical procedure) I do take your point about an increased risk of developmental problems due to the gestational age.

However, there are still three problems from my perspective. Firstly, a foetus which is viable but born with some developmental problems is still alive, that's something to be thankful for. Secondly, we don't have any data regarding viability of abortions performed in these periods, so we don't know how many, if any, could have been viable. Finally, the possible viability and risk of disability of the foetus must still be weighed against the risk to the health and life of the mother.

Mark Hamill · 10-07-2013 5:12pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I assume by your failure to answer the question directly that there are in fact NO scientific tests that will take place to determine if a mother is suicidal or faking it?

A quick google of the suicide test will give various methods for testing, Brown Bomber (Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, The kessler psychological distress scale (k10), Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation® (BSS®) etc.)
Maybe you should do a bit of leg work and actually look up about these issues before making such uninformed claims?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Does the 8th amendment prohibit specific methods of abortion? Could you specify? If not, what is the reason that the UK's abortion methods won't be available here?

Have you tried reading it yourself?
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.

10-07-2013 5:14pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And on what grounds should a 20 week plus abortion not take place in Ireland on request from a "suicidal" mother?

Given you've put quotes around suicidal, one of the grounds would be "faking it". Another would be if a psychiatrist determined it would not be a suitable treatment

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I assume by your failure to answer the question directly that there are in fact NO scientific tests that will take place to determine if a mother is suicidal or faking it?

Once again, you have not read the post that you requested. Psychiatry is a science, btw.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Does the 8th amendment prohibit specific methods of abortion? Could you specify? If not, what is the reason that the UK's abortion methods won't be available here?

8th amendment protects the right to life of the child. A specific method of abortion that infringes on that right would be prohibited

Delirium · 10-07-2013 5:17pm

@Brown Bomber are you concerned that all suicidal people may be faking it or is that suspicion only aimed at pregnant women?

aloyisious · 10-07-2013 6:05pm

Lucinda's statement in the Dail a short while ago included a bit where she spoke to Dr Reilly. She used the words "Your Government" when referring to the bill.

bumper234 · 10-07-2013 6:05pm

Another few hours and it will all be over. They saying midnight or later now. Did anyone see them PRAYING outside the dail ffs.

Nodin · 10-07-2013 6:07pm

aloyisious wrote: »

Lucinda's statement in the Dail a short while ago included a bit where she spoke to Dr Reilly. She used the words "Your Government" when referring to the bill.

...saying they're 'under no obligation to legislate' and saying the supreme court was "wrong". Dear me.

Turtwig · 10-07-2013 6:07pm

bumper234 wrote: »

Another few hours and it will all be over. They saying midnight or later now. Did anyone see them PRAYING outside the dail ffs.

Yeah this one with Gandalf is confusing the heck out of me. I'm not sure if it's a poe or not.

bumper234 · 10-07-2013 6:08pm

aloyisious wrote: »

Lucinda's statement in the Dail a short while ago included a bit where she spoke to Dr Reilly. She used the words "Your Government" when referring to the bill.

Ah she needs to cop the **** on and That fool Mathews saying life begins at conception and ends in natural death. What if you get hit by a bus ffs theirs nothing natural about that.

shruikan2553 · 10-07-2013 6:08pm

Ah the religious ones, destroying any chance of taking their side seriously.

Is there anywhere to read the legislation they want to bring in? Or a shortened version

Jernal wrote: »

Yeah this one with Gandalf is confusing the heck out of me. I'm not sure if it's a poe or not.

Why is gandalf aborting jesus?

bumper234 · 10-07-2013 6:14pm

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Ah the religious ones, destroying any chance of taking their side seriously.

Is there anywhere to read the legislation they want to bring in? Or a shortened version

Why is gandalf aborting jesus?

Pro life = orcses in disguises my precious

Bannasidhe · 10-07-2013 6:19pm

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Ah the religious ones, destroying any chance of taking their side seriously.

Is there anywhere to read the legislation they want to bring in? Or a shortened version

Why is gandalf aborting jesus?

Are we sure that's not Dumbledore?

Turtwig · 10-07-2013 6:19pm

Holy Mother of Meatballs Batman! ! !

Michelle Mulherin looking like she's going to support the bill!:eek:

Nodin · 10-07-2013 6:20pm

Jernal wrote: »

Holy Mother of Meatballs Batman! ! !

Michelle Mulherin looking like she's going to support the bill!:eek:

....they must reckon Enda is serio about chucking them out and banning them from running.

Brown Bomber · 10-07-2013 6:22pm

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Thank you for that, BB.

While I'm not sure, having read the paper abstracts that the datasets are entirely comparable (i.e. premature birth is a medical emergency vs. a planned medical procedure) I do take your point about an increased risk of developmental problems due to the gestational age.

However, there are still three problems from my perspective. Firstly, a foetus which is viable but born with some developmental problems is still alive, that's something to be thankful for. Secondly, we don't have any data regarding viability of abortions performed in these periods, so we don't know how many, if any, could have been viable. Finally, the possible viability and risk of disability of the foetus must still be weighed against the risk to the health and life of the mother.

I concede all your points and accept your motivations as valid. At least you accept that there is a moral dilemma and there are other factors to be at least considered besides the mothers demands.

aloyisious · 10-07-2013 6:26pm

Jernal wrote: »

Holy Mother of Meatballs Batman! ! !

Michelle Mulherin looking like she's going to support the bill!:eek:

I thought I'd misheard the RTE bit on that. It said she said that she was not going to be BOOTED out of the party, or summat like that. Bit hearsay-ish but very interesting. I'm actually lucky to have caught it as I tried to throttle the radio earlier. Peter Matthews was "explaining" how the AG had explained the meaning of the bill to him, and he came to realise it did not contradict the 8th amendment or the Supreme Court ruling protecting the unborn. Poor Peter did not like the implications he felt were behind the wording of the interviewer's questions and the denial of wafflle-airtime.

maguic24 · 10-07-2013 6:46pm

aloyisious wrote: »

I thought I'd misheard the RTE bit on that. It said she said that she was not going to be thrown out of the party, or summat like that. Bit hearsay-ish but very interesting. I'm actually lucky to have caught it as I tried to throttle the radio earlier. Peter Matthews was "explaining" how the AG had explained the meaning of the bill to him, and he came to realise it did not contradict the 8th amendment or the Supreme Court ruling protecting the unborn. Poor Peter did not like the implications he felt were behind the wording of the interviewer's questions and the denial of wafflle-airtime.

Yeah, seems like she is.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/michelle-mulherin-to-support-abortion-bill-29411043.html

Mardy Bum · 10-07-2013 7:02pm

Michael Healy Rae said a fetus is the exact same as himself and James Reilly.

Delirium · 10-07-2013 7:03pm

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Michael Healy Rae said a fetus is the exact same as himself and James Reilly.

I wouldn't argue with that part :pac:

aloyisious · 10-07-2013 7:04pm

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Michael Healy Rae said a fetus is the exact same as himself and James Reilly.

Has he seen the YD poster?

bumper234 · 10-07-2013 7:09pm

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Michael Healy Rae said a fetus is the exact same as himself and James Reilly.

Keep the fetus and abort that whole family. Jesus if ever there were a bunch of gombeen muck savages that can give this country a bad name. No wonder people think we are backwards.

The Black Oil · 10-07-2013 7:35pm

Saw this in a thread in tLL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hf8-wNL_m5w

Catholic Voices woman just basically repeats the arguments we've heard before. Pathetic to claim that FG are introducing the legislation to distract from the economic crisis.

Sarky · 10-07-2013 7:40pm

Embarrassingly full of lies and idiocy, isn't it?

ethical · 10-07-2013 7:42pm

You have got to admire the politicians that stuck to their guns whither you agree with their views or not.It was very disappointing to hear some others have put their careers before their views,I include here the West of Ireland TD that would have lost the chance to run for Europe if he had stuck to his 'no' ,he obviously thought of all the money he would loose if he stood up for what he believed in!

Abortion Discussion

Comments