Does anyone feel insulted by the abortion proposals?

iwantmydinner

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

To be honest, while I appreciate that as you said, it's simple biology, it's ultimately the woman who bears the child, it just annoys me the complete imbalance in rights/responsibilities that a (non-running-away-from-the-situation) father, or prospective father has. I suppose that's a whole other debate. Night.

It is.

And there's not much women can do about it.

Obliq

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

I'd see those as far more serious than "I'm not ready for this now" (simplifying things, perhaps).

This really gets my back up Dave, for the simple reason that "I'm not ready" implies that a woman always wants to have children. It also implies that an unwanted pregnancy at a potentially disastrous time in a woman's life, is just an attack of nerves or putting off the inevitable.

Please withdraw the implication that a pregnancy (brought to term) is not one of the MOST incredibly serious decisions a woman may make for her life. Please use a more appropriate line of reasoning, such as "I don't want to have this baby". Your "simplification" contains inappropriate assumptions.

Scarinae

A priest on the board of the Mater Hospital says that the hospital “cannot comply” with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act and cannot carry out abortions bceause it is against the hospital ethos. I wonder if he has actually read it.

kylith

Scarinae wrote: »

A priest on the board of the Mater Hospital says that the hospital “cannot comply” with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act and cannot carry out abortions bceause it is against the hospital ethos. I wonder if he has actually read it.

Oh, he'll be taking the 'if she dies it's God's will' stance, I'm sure. Bastard. Healing ministry my arse.

If I had to give birth on the street I wouldn't go to the Mater now.

FouxDaFaFa

So, the Mater's ethos is that they don't want to save dying people.

Awesome ethos for a hospital to have.

Can they go against this, legally? It seems like it would be a crime to allow a pregnant woman to die just so they can preserve the sanctity of the life of the foetus.

MaxWig

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

So, the Mater's ethos is that they don't want to save dying people.

Awesome ethos for a hospital to have.

Can they go against this, legally? It seems like it would be a crime to allow a pregnant woman to die just so they can preserve the sanctity of the life of the foetus.

They didn't have to provide the pill.

Still don't.

Fec*in nuns

dharma200

Same preist who managed to halt drug trails for people suffereing from lung cancer because the women on the trials would have to take contraception due to a risk if they got pregnant. he is on the board, and managed to delay these trails for terminally ill cancer patients because they would have to take contraception. This man should not be allowed to have any say in state funded hospitals and , as a previous poster said, i would rather give birth in the street than go in to that hospital.

Morag

The Mater is owned by the sisters of mercy one of the orders who ran laundries and have refused to pay thier part of the redress scheme.

Hospitals should have a choice of thier Ethos or HSE funding.

iwantmydinner

So, wait... if I'm rushed to the Mater hospital, need an emergency termination to save my life, fully within the legal restrictions... They might come back and say their ethos won't allow it to be carried out?

I will be eagerly awaiting the outcome of this board meeting. I'm hoping against hope that his voice will be drowned out by the other board members.

Also, question for this guy: How does not saving a dying woman sit with his 'ethos'?

dharma200

This man would rather women die without receiving health care, if they have to take contraception. His ethos is disgusting and he should be removed from the board. The Mater is not a hospital I would choose for pre natal care. Very dangerous when people like this man have a say:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/three-who-stopped-the-cancer-tests-25960150.html

dharma200

"They objected because female patients who get could get pregnant would have to take contraceptives under the treatment."

Wome who are dying of lung cancer with no alternative treatment, refused trials because they would have to take contraceptives. This man and his two idiot friends managed to stop these trials for months. He is scum, and uses so called ethos, that hosiptals catholic ethos is inhumane and should be outlawed.

Obliq

iwantmydinner wrote: »

I will be eagerly awaiting the outcome of this board meeting. I'm hoping against hope that his voice will be drowned out by the other board members.

I reckon that's a bit hopeful hon

From the article about them stopping the cancer trial -

"THE people whose advice delayed the treatment of lung cancer patients at a major hospital are a priest, a nun and a businessman.............

The ethics committee, which has a range of expertise.........

Another member, Timothy Mooney, who is a senior lecturer in Philosophy in UCD said he could not remember what was discussed at the meeting.

It was only yesterday it emerged this subcommittee had just the one member with a medical background.

The extent to which they consulted with doctors could not be confirmed."

iwantmydinner

Obliq wrote: »

I reckon that's a bit hopeful hon

From the article about them stopping the cancer trial -

"THE people whose advice delayed the treatment of lung cancer patients at a major hospital are a priest, a nun and a businessman.............

The ethics committee, which has a range of expertise.........

Another member, Timothy Mooney, who is a senior lecturer in Philosophy in UCD said he could not remember what was discussed at the meeting.

It was only yesterday it emerged this subcommittee had just the one member with a medical background.

The extent to which they consulted with doctors could not be confirmed."

I read that too, it's facking grim

RDM_83 again

iwantmydinner wrote: »

So, wait... if I'm rushed to the Mater hospital, need an emergency termination to save my life, fully within the legal restrictions... They might come back and say their ethos won't allow it to be carried out?

That point is valid , but I don't think the Mater a good example (at present) of this being a problem, James is literally 10 minutes away on a bicycle so probably much less in an ambulance. Does the Mater do much maternity treatment I don't think it does at the minute? However this will be a major issue if the Rotunda moves there as planned.

Obliq wrote: »

I reckon that's a bit hopeful hon

From the article about them stopping the cancer trial -

"THE people whose advice delayed the treatment of lung cancer patients at a major hospital are a priest, a nun and a businessman.............

The ethics committee, which has a range of expertise.........

Another member, Timothy Mooney, who is a senior lecturer in Philosophy in UCD said he could not remember what was discussed at the meeting.

It was only yesterday it emerged this subcommittee had just the one member with a medical background.

The extent to which they consulted with doctors could not be confirmed."

This article confused me a bit, does an individual sub-committee like this not just examine the issue, then place their recommendations to the full committee?
I also think a point is being missed that this was not in anyway a cure, rather it extended survival by up to two months, now obviously I disagree with the decision but this may explain why it was reached.

Gongoozler

St James is more than ten mins away from the Mater.
I dont know what the subcommittee is relevant to, but the board would be a lay majority, as is the norm.

lazygal

There are also services only the Mater provides. Its not always possible to just go somewhere else for treatment.

stanley 2

lazygal wrote: »

I don't agree with a hierarchy of reasons for access to abortion. I don't care why someone wants an abortion, only that they can access it in a timely and safe manner.

Even if the reason is that the couple only want one child and this one is a girl and they would prefer to terminate this one and wait till they produce a Boy child .

Even if this was a one night stand and it would not have been so bad if the father had not been African Irish.

stanley 2

iwantmydinner wrote: »

The question makes me bristle; but I'll take it on face value and accept that you're not being adversarial here.

Simple biology means that the woman makes the ultimate decision. She is the one who carries the child. It's that simple.

I mean, you can't realistically contemplate a situation where the father gets to force a pregnant woman to end a pregnancy, or force her to continue with one she feels she cannot carry to term?

I wouldnot agree with that but it already exist in China where the state dose force abortions on unwilling women not a big jump to see it extended to fathers also getting the right to teminate pregnacys
and i would apose this just as i apose mothers doing the same

lazygal

stanley 2 wrote: »

Even if the reason is that the couple only want one child and this one is a girl and they would prefer to terminate this one and wait till they produce a Boy child .

Even if this was a one night stand and it would not have been so bad if the father had not been African Irish.

You've pulled this nonsense out on other abortion threads. Gender selective abortion is illegal in the uk and in Ireland abortion is only available to save the life of a woman. Where is your data on the numbers of abortions carried out for the reasons you've mentioned?

Nymeria

stanley 2 wrote: »

Even if the reason is that the couple only want one child and this one is a girl and they would prefer to terminate this one and wait till they produce a Boy child .

Even if this was a one night stand and it would not have been so bad if the father had not been African Irish.

WTF!!? What ridiculously insulting bullsh!t. Frankly, its none of your business why a person or a couple decide to terminate. Since when do you get to decide what is or is not a 'good enough' reason... as for the last line - your ignorance is disgusting.

Ice Storm

dharma200 wrote: »

"They objected because female patients who get could get pregnant would have to take contraceptives under the treatment."

This makes me so angry! The Catholic Church really has a history of obsession with women's bodies and sex.

Reading this reminded me of when the bishops objected to the use of tampons when they were being introduced into Ireland. That was in the 40s... can't believe how far we still have to go.

Tigger99

He's not speaking on behalf of the board. It's his personal rant. The Mater is named as one of 34 hospitals, either under the Act or the secondary legislation, cannot remember. If the hospital takes this stance there will be consequences.

stanley 2

Nymeria wrote: »

WTF!!? What ridiculously insulting bullsh!t. Frankly, its none of your business why a person or a couple decide to terminate. Since when do you get to decide what is or is not a 'good enough' reason... as for the last line - your ignorance is disgusting.

you answer is in your own statement ( its none of peoples buisness why people decide to terminate )( since when do people get to decide what is a good enoughh reason)
I would say the colour of young child skin is not a good enough reason
i would say the gender of the child is not a good enough reason
ect ect
so people have a right to decide what is not a good enough reason
and easy on the expletives

stanley 2

lazygal wrote: »

You've pulled this nonsense out on other abortion threads. Gender selective abortion is illegal in the uk and in Ireland abortion is only available to save the life of a woman. Where is your data on the numbers of abortions carried out for the reasons you've mentioned?

Lazy gal i can always count on you for a quick response
in india if you travel around you will come across sighn saying spend 5000 rupie now save 50000 tomorow this means come in and have a scan for 5000 rupi today and if it is a girl child have it aborted and then you wont get stuck with the problem of a dowery similar thing happen in China but for different reason s unfortunatly this idea also now exists in our home sweet home as we are now a multicultural society.

Frito

stanley 2 wrote: »

unfortunatly this idea also now exists in our home sweet home as we are now a multicultural society.

Has this happened or do you suspect it might? It's not as if I can get a free abortion from the local takeaway provided I order the house special.


Female infanticide has a long history and abortion is not the only method.
Hope this link works, some stats on the amount of missing children from the 2011 census. Interestingly, both male and female child populations have declined, with females having a steeper decline.
[HTML]http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-loses-3-million-girls-in-infanticide/article3981575.ece[/HTML]


If female infanticide is due to the low status of women, I suggest that improving access to education and protecting reproductive rights are a starting point, not restricting abortion. However, this is not India, or China.

RDM_83 again

Gongoozler wrote: »

St James is more than ten mins away from the Mater.
I dont know what the subcommittee is relevant to, but the board would be a lay majority, as is the norm.

Its really not in terms of distance at all, I've personally cycled it in 10-12 minutes, google maps puts it as 7 minutes in a car.

stanley 2

Frito wrote: »

Has this happened or do you suspect it might? It's not as if I can get a free abortion from the local takeaway provided I order the house special.


Female infanticide has a long history and abortion is not the only method.
Hope this link works, some stats on the amount of missing children from the 2011 census. Interestingly, both male and female child populations have declined, with females having a steeper decline.
[HTML]http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-loses-3-million-girls-in-infanticide/article3981575.ece[/HTML]


If female infanticide is due to the low status of women, I suggest that improving access to education and protecting reproductive rights are a starting point, not restricting abortion. However, this is not India, or China.

come on smell the coffee female infancide would be reduced by restricting abortion thats a no brainer

Gongoozler

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Its really not in terms of distance at all, I've personally cycled it in 10-12 minutes, google maps puts it as 7 minutes in a car.

It puts it at 11 in a car, and thats without traffic. Common sense like, come on.

Anyway, just dont like people scewing things to suit their argument. Im out of this now.

rainbow kirby

Stanley 2 - try to make a coherent argument and stay on topic please.

kylith

stanley 2 wrote: »

come on smell the coffee female infancide would be reduced by restricting abortion thats a no brainer

Would it? Or would female babies be killed at birth instead, as they are in some parts of China? Isn't termination before the point of viability better than dying of exposure or starvation?