Doctors reject abortion motions

Shane-KornSpace

The Irish Medical Organisation has rejected a motion supporting regulation of abortion in line with the X Case following a heated and emotive debate.

The motion was defeated by 42 votes to 32 at the IMO's annual conference.

The AGM has also rejected abortion in the case of victims of rape or incest who become pregnant.

Doctors also rejected a call for legislation for abortion in the case of a woman with a non-viable foetal abnormality.


Read the rest here, on RTÉ.ie

The part I have in bold, really bugs the hell out of me.
How anyone can let women whom have become pregnant by rape or having been sexually abused by a family member go through with the birth, against their will, is just beyond me. it sickens me, frankly.

steddyeddy

Jesus. In fairness though a lot of doctors feel the IMO doesn't represent them.

Da Shins Kelly

There really is just an anti-woman sentiment at the root of all this, in my opinion.

My name is URL

Only 75 people bothered to vote... out of a membership of what, over 5000?

Depressing stuff

Bipolar Joe

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

There really is just an anti-woman sentiment at the root of all this, in my opinion.

That's a MASSIVE leap. I think it has far more to do with an upbringing where stuff like this was seen as immoral, regardless of the reason. I don't agree with their decision, at all, but I can understand not wanting to be part of something I might perceive as immoral (Also the Hippocratic oath thing I don't really know a whole lot about maybe.)

My name is URL

Dublin GP Dr Cyril Daly said he was reminded of German doctors during the war, who conducted tests and carried out abortion

ffs!

pablomakaveli

Shane-KornSpace wrote: »

The AGM has also rejected abortion in the case of victims of rape or incest who become pregnant.

You have to be a special kind of sadistic c**t to expect a women to carry a baby to term in those circumstances.

Nodin

My name is URL wrote: »

Only 75 people bothered to vote... out of a membership of what, over 5000?

Depressing stuff

A cross section of the age of all 75 would interesting, as well as breakdown of either side.

Shane-KornSpace

Nodin wrote: »

A cross section of the age of all 75 would interesting, as well as breakdown of either side.

I'd be curious to know this too. Something tells me (I could be wrong) that the "yes" voters were typically younger than the "no" voters.

missingtime

The "Abortions on demand" excuse sickens me as well. I mean do they all think that women are sluts or something. And even if they are sluts, its their decision to go an do something like that. Clueless decision.

Turtyturd

Nodin wrote: »

A cross section of the age of all 75 would interesting, as well as breakdown of either side.

Yeah I would have expected mainly male doctors to be in opposition but Eleanor's not exactly doing women's rights any favours.

Dr Eleanor Corcoran, a psychiatrist, said if the motion was passed it would mean abortion on demand.

shopaholic01

Can someone explain why we had a referendum on this if doctors can just vote against it?

Nodin

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Can someone explain why we had a referendum on this if doctors can just vote against it?

Other than make them look like a shower of gobshites, I'm not sure it has much effect.

cassi

I've said it on other treads an ill say it again, the term "abortion on demand" is a terribly innacurate way of describing what women are looking for. No one is demanding an abortion, they are requesting it for a litany of reasons that most often are not made easily.

Abortion by request much better represents what people are looking for in thi country!

Da Shins Kelly

Bipolar Joe wrote: »

That's a MASSIVE leap. I think it has far more to do with an upbringing where stuff like this was seen as immoral, regardless of the reason. I don't agree with their decision, at all, but I can understand not wanting to be part of something I might perceive as immoral (Also the Hippocratic oath thing I don't really know a whole lot about maybe.)

Don't think it's that massive a leap. I think, whether people realise it or not, that a lot of it does have to do with some level of patriarchal control. It may not be a conscious anti-woman agenda, but it is there.

Chuck Stone

Does it matter a fuck what they say?

If limited abortion becomes law then they can just STFU and let other doctors get on with it, no?

Augmerson

I think we will see legalised abortion in this country but not for another 15 years. The older generation is very much against it. I think younger people, though not every single one, are more open to the idea.

SB2013

Shane-KornSpace wrote: »

The Irish Medical Organisation has rejected a motion supporting regulation of abortion in line with the X Case following a heated and emotive debate.

The motion was defeated by 42 votes to 32 at the IMO's annual conference.

The AGM has also rejected abortion in the case of victims of rape or incest who become pregnant.

Doctors also rejected a call for legislation for abortion in the case of a woman with a non-viable foetal abnormality.


Read the rest here, on RTÉ.ie

The part I have in bold, really bugs the hell out of me.
How anyone can let women whom have become pregnant by rape or having been sexually abused by a family member go through with the birth, against their will, is just beyond me. it sickens me, frankly.

It's because you either don't understand or don't respect their views. Most anti-abortionists believe that a foetus is a living being. So the fact that it was conceived in such a manner is not relevent to wether it's life should be ended. It's a matter of balancing two lives. One should only be destroyed if it's necessary to save the other.

St.Spodo

If a child is brutally raped and becomes pregnant she has to carry the pregnancy to finality and endure both the stigma and the appalling circumstance of having a rapists child grow inside her and affect her health. This is Ireland.

omahaid

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Does it matter a fuck what they say?

If limited abortion becomes law then they can just STFU and let other doctors get on with it, no?

Ya, that was my understanding too, dont understand why it was the first news article on 6-1

Pumpkinseeds

I think religious beliefs need to be kept entirely seperate from medical practice. If a doctor has personal moral or religious objections to abortion perhaps they should have chosen an alterative career.

Shane-KornSpace

St.Spodo wrote: »

If a child is brutally raped and becomes pregnant she has to carry the pregnancy to finality and endure both the stigma and the appalling circumstance of having a rapists child grow inside her and affecting her health. This is Ireland.

+1

A 16 year old gets impregnated by her father.
Rather than help her and terminate the pregnancy, she is punished by our laws. She's made carry around the baby.
Wtf is wrong with people?

Pompey Magnus

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I think religious beliefs need to be kept entirely seperate from medical practice.

Should, say, feminist beliefs also be kept entirely separate from medical practice and decision making also? Or is it just the beliefs that disagree with your point of view which you want removed?

Steve O

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Can someone explain why we had a referendum on this if doctors can just vote against it?

It's a country were the elite get first dibs on democracy.

Pumpkinseeds

The best interests of the patient is what should be of paramount to concern for all doctors. I can't actually see what feminism has to do with it?

Pompey Magnus

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

The best interests of the patient are what are paramount to me and should be the main concern for all doctors. I can't actually see what feminism has to do with it?

And presumably you feel that when the doctor treats a pregnant woman he should only see this as one patient and not two? I assume the doctors that rejected the motion disagree.

Pumpkinseeds

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

And presumably you feel that when the doctor treats a pregnant woman he should only see this as one patient and not two? I assume the doctors that rejected the motion disagree.

I would hope that my medical needs would come before the welfare of a foetus/unborn child,absolutely. Why should a woman's health be considered a lower priority? As for feminism,my idea of feminism is using what you have to get what you want. I don't have children and have been very careful to avoid getting pregnant. It horrifies me that I or any other woman in this country could die as a result of outdated legislation or someone elses sense of moral or ethical beliefs.

Pompey Magnus

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

I would hope that my medical needs would come before the welfare of a foetus/unborn child,absolutely. Why should a woman's health be considered a lower priority?

Perhaps the doctors feel that both's patients' needs should be treated equally compassionately, without priority given to either. I certainly wouldn't agree with a woman's health be given a lower priority, perhaps some do but I haven't heard of it.

whatdoicare

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

Perhaps the doctors feel that both's patients' needs should be treated equally compassionately, without priority given to either. I certainly wouldn't agree with a woman's health be given a lower priority, perhaps some do but I haven't heard of it.

Well, it's been shown in a HSE report recently released that Salvita Halpaanavar died needlessly because her foetus (an unviable foetus at that) was given a higher priority over her own deteriorating health.

goose2005

I don't see the problem - if you believe a foetus is a full human being then that belief can hardly change based on how he/she was conceived.

I wouldn't object to "abortion on demand" but surely it's ludicrous to say that killing a foetus is murder, but killing a foetus conceived by rape/incest isn't murder.

Pride Fighter

The IMO are a bunch of corrupt, misogynistic bigots. They are a discredited organisation and the doctors need a new vehicle to represent them.