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!

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?

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.

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.

whatdoicare

goose2005 wrote: »

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.

A foetus isn't a full human being - it can't survive on it's own outside the womb until at least 24 weeks gestation and not without considerable medical intervention. (I am pregnant and 26 weeks gone - my baby was not considered a "viable baby" by medical standards until two weeks ago, it was my consultant who informed me of this fact) Before this, if I die or my body decides to expel the foetus for whatever reason, the foetus dies and doctors can't do anything to save it.

Clandestine

I'm sorry, I thought this was 2013

padd b1975

cassi wrote: »

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!

Same result though, no matter how you dress it up in temperate language.


A dead baby.

Turtyturd

padd b1975 wrote: »

Same result though, no matter how you dress it up in temperate language.


A dead baby.

Oh the irony.

Clandestine

padd b1975 wrote: »

Same result though, no matter how you dress it up in temperate language.


A dead baby.

lel

padd b1975

Turtyturd wrote: »

Oh the irony.

No irony from me, just the harsh reality of abortion.

Paramite Pie

I wonder how many of those doctors will ever need an abortion in their life time?:rolleyes:

whatdoicare wrote: »

A foetus isn't a full human being - it can't survive on it's own outside the womb until at least 24 weeks gestation and not without considerable medical intervention. (I am pregnant and 26 weeks gone - my baby was not considered a "viable baby" by medical standards until two weeks ago, it was my consultant who informed me of this fact) Before this, if I die or my body decides to expel the foetus for whatever reason, the foetus dies and doctors can't do anything to save it.

While I believe in legalizing abortion I do think a foetus is still human even if it can't survive outside the womb. A new born baby would not survive either without at least one person to look after it. I do not think it's about viability.

The tricky part is when does this foetus become self-aware or truly alive... and the truth is that's probably a gradual process...

However I would not deny someone an abortion if I were a doctor/legislator.

Turtyturd

padd b1975 wrote: »

No irony from me, just the harsh reality of abortion.

Plenty of irony when you criticise someone for the language they use while using inflammatory language in the same post.

And you obviously have no idea of the reality of abortion.

TheChizler

Wasn't it specifically the wording they disagreed with? Not necessarily the whole concept?

whatdoicare

Paramite Pie wrote: »

I wonder how many of those doctors will ever need an abortion in their life time?:rolleyes:



While I believe in legalizing abortion I do think a foetus is still human even if it can't survive outside the womb. A new born baby would not survive either without at least one person to look after it. I do not think it's about viability.

The tricky part is when does this foetus become self-aware or truly alive... and the truth is that's probably a gradual process...

However I would not deny someone an abortion if I were a doctor/legislator.

That's the crucial thing though, isn't it - alot of this is being left to peoples beliefs when it should be decided on facts. None of this should be based on a doctors personal thoughts. It needs to be laid down clearly and without room for doubt in the law.

I'm pregnant - this is a very much wanted, planned and longed for baby. I would never in a million years abort this baby unless my life was in danger. I have a huge amount of support available to me from my husband, family, work and friends both financially and emotionally. I have sailed through my pregnancy and have had zero problems. I am the ideal of what pregnancy should be.

Saying all of that, I would never, ever, ever expect another woman to go through what I am going through against their will. Not for any reason.
It is very hard emotionally, physically and financially before the baby is even born and that is when everything is going perfectly.

I am also very uncomfortable with the realisation that doctors, even after the salvita case, still regard the foetus' life as more important than mine in every scenario.

Things need to change and fast - there needs to be clear rules and noone should be left in any doubt about what those rules mean for the health and wellbeing of mothers to be.

padd b1975

Turtyturd wrote: »

And you obviously have no idea of the reality of abortion.

Don't you for one second think you know about my idea of the reality of abortion.

OK?

padd b1975

Pride Fighter wrote: »

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

Any examples?

Nodin

padd b1975 wrote: »

Don't you for one second think you know about my idea of the reality of abortion.

OK?

Why?

Turtyturd

padd b1975 wrote: »

Don't you for one second think you know about my idea of the reality of abortion.

OK?

Cool, But just for future reference, if you put up a simple and sensationalist view of abortion it's going to give people the impression that you hold a simple and sensationalist view of abortion.

OK?

Morag

Very disapointed at this,

These are what they voted to reject


38 - This meeting calls on the IMO to support regulation in relation to the provision of abortion services where there is a “real and substantial risk” to the life of the mother)

39 - The IMO calls on the Government to legislate for women who become pregnant as a result of a criminal act that they would be allowed access to legal termination within Ireland and

40 The IMO calls on the Government to legislate for the provision of abortion services for women who are pregnant with non-viable fetal anomalies who choose to proceed with an abortion.

Fair play toDr Mary Favier & Dr Mark Murphy of Doctors for Choice for proposing the motions. The IMO are now out of line with the majority of Irish people who think women should have the right to an abortion here in Ireland under those provisions.

Paramite Pie

whatdoicare wrote: »

I am also very uncomfortable with the realisation that doctors, even after the salvita case, still regard the foetus' life as more important than mine in every scenario.

Things need to change and fast - there needs to be clear rules and noone should be left in any doubt about what those rules mean for the health and wellbeing of mothers to be.

No matter how religious people claim to be, then they cannot regard one life as more important, so it's hypocritical of them anyways to put the foetus first.

I would never judge anyone for having an abortion even if I don't think I'd consider one myself. However you never know until your put in those circumstances.

The case of Savita was particularly horrifying. I didn't know her but I lived near Doughiska in Galway so it was the talk of the town.

In some parts of the world, doctors have gotten excommunicated for carrying out abortions, even on teenage rape victims. I can't comprehend such heartless opposition.

opinion guy

padd b1975 wrote: »

Don't you for one second think you know about my idea of the reality of abortion.

OK?

Why don't you tell us then ?

Nodin

Morag wrote: »

Very disapointed at this,

These are what they voted to reject


38 - This meeting calls on the IMO to support regulation in relation to the provision of abortion services where there is a “real and substantial risk” to the life of the mother)

39 - The IMO calls on the Government to legislate for women who become pregnant as a result of a criminal act that they would be allowed access to legal termination within Ireland and

40 The IMO calls on the Government to legislate for the provision of abortion services for women who are pregnant with non-viable fetal anomalies who choose to proceed with an abortion.

Fair play toDr Mary Favier & Dr Mark Murphy of Doctors for Choice for proposing the motions. The IMO are now out of line with the majority of Irish people who think women should have the right to an abortion here in Ireland under those provisions.

It's really hard to fathom how somebody could have a problem with that.

oppenheimer1

My name is URL wrote: »

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

Depressing stuff

Perhaps it was only practical for 75 doctors to be there, given its all the way down in Killarney. You know medics might have other commitments too, like jobs and families.

padd b1975

Nodin wrote: »

Why?

Personal reasons.