8th Amendment

Kev W

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

While factually correct, of course.

It's "factually correct" that the human race would die out if we all intentionally drowned ourselves. Should we ban swimming?

Kev W

Black Menorca wrote: »

How did you read that I was referring to a drought of ill people in my post?

You implied that doctors wouldn't want to perform abortions because they would want the foetus to grow into a person whom they could treat when they become ill. I used exaggeration to show that I believe that to be a silly notion. I'll try to avoid it in future if you insist on taking everything literally.

And before you ask, no I don't literally think that you literally take everything literally so you don't need to ask me to link to examples of you doing so.

traprunner

Black Menorca wrote: »

Sadly, there are many clinicians in this country who countenance a future situation where some of their patients may be intentionally killed in the womb. Hence why they ran a mile from the Dublin Declaration.

Their patients are the women they are seeing. That's why they get the wrist band with their personal details including date of birth. The foetus does not get their name or date of birth on a wrist band because they are not the patient.

Kev W

traprunner wrote: »

Their patients are the women they are seeing. That's why they get the wrist band with their personal details including date of birth. The foetus does not get their name or date of birth on a wrist band because they are not the patient.

The idea that Black Menorca was referring to the foetus as the "patient" is actually so ridiculous and wrongheaded that it never even occurred to me that that's what he meant.

traprunner

Kev W wrote: »

The idea that Black Menorca was referring to the foetus as the "patient" is actually so ridiculous and wrongheaded that it never even occurred to me that that's what he meant.

After months of his responses you'll get used to the way he things

lazygal

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

While factually correct, of course.

How so? Are lesbians' uteruses removed once they come out?

krankykitty

Wasn't there someone here saying no pro choice doctors had refuted the Dublin Declaration? Letter from Doctors for Choice in the IT this morning, signed by a variety of doctors, refuting a letter by various signatories of the DD which was printed last week.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/amnesty-international-and-abortion-1.2258863

Drs for Choice wrote:

Sir, – Doctors for Choice fully supports Amnesty International’s report and its recommendation to repeal the Eighth Amendment.
Their insightful report provides written testimony of the trauma experienced by women and families as a direct result of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. We are indebted to these brave individuals whose powerful voice has clearly highlighted the wide-ranging effects of the Eighth Amendment on standard obstetric care, on crisis pregnancy management and on women’s human rights.
We are also very disappointed that several obstetrician colleagues discounted their concerns as “unwarranted and unfounded allegations”, which is both insulting and insensitive. We recognise that the authors of the letter have significant obstetric experience. We cannot understand therefore their insistence that the management of miscarriage is not affected by the Constitution.
Savita Hallapanavar’s death in 2013, from a septic miscarriage, was as a direct result of our Constitution granting the unborn an equal right to life to the “mother”. Recommendation 4b of Prof Sabaratnam Arulkumaran’s report to the HSE on the death of Savita Halappanavar, stated: “There is immediate and urgent requirement for a clear statement of the legal context in which clinical judgment can be exercised in the best medical welfare interests of patients . . . We recommend that the clinical professional community, health and social regulators and the Oireachtas consider the law including any necessary constitutional change and related administrative, legal and clinical guidelines in relation to the management of inevitable miscarriage in the early second trimester”.
Similarly, Prof Peter Boylan, former master of the National Maternity Hospital and an expert witness at the coroner’s inquiry into Savita Halappanavar’s death, claimed that the Constitution itself contributed to Ms Halappanavar losing her life.
In late 2014, the case of an effectively dead woman, in early pregnancy, came before the Irish courts and it became patently clear how the Constitution very much affects standard obstetric practice.
The letter also states that Irish maternity care is among the best in the world. While Irish maternal mortality rates are average by international standards (at approximately eight per 100,000) – which is a credit to the wonderful work performed by under-resourced nurses and doctors in obstetric units – we should note that maternal mortality is not the sole arbiter of whether an obstetric service is safe, effective or patient-centred.
The letter-writers seem to overlook the experiences of over 150,000 Irishwomen who have been forced by the State to travel abroad, in the midst of a crisis pregnancy, to access safe abortion services.
Article 40.3.3 abandons them and criminalisation forces stigma, isolation and financial burden on their shoulders. Irish women are forced to have later abortions as a result of the Constitution and the process of travelling causes health ill-effects. This is not safe. This is not compassionate or effective care. This is the antithesis of patient-centredness.
The “safest country in the world for maternity services” narrative is a myth. In fact we are one of the most dangerous countries in the world to have a crisis pregnancy, in no small part due to the Eighth Amendment. Let’s repeal it. – Yours, etc,
Dr TIERNAN MURRAY,
Dr MARY FAVIER,
Dr MARION DYER,
Dr MARK MURPHY,
Dr ROSS KELLY,
Prof VERONICA O’KEANE,
Doctors for Choice, Ireland,
Kilmacud,
Dublin 14.

No Voter And Proud

SW wrote: »

because being homosexual means a person can't reproduce

That's the definition of homosexuality, not heterosexuals. Correct. Gold star for you.

Kev W wrote: »

It's "factually correct" that the human race would die out if we all intentionally drowned ourselves. Should we ban swimming?

Completely unrelated.

lazygal wrote: »

How so? Are lesbians' uteruses removed once they come out?

No but they are rendered useless by the lack of heterosexual activity

No Voter And Proud

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

No but they are rendered useless by the lack of heterosexual activity

That would suggest that no lesbian has given, or could ever give birth.

Would you consider that implausible?

traprunner

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

That's the definition of homosexuality, not heterosexuals. Correct. Gold star for you.

Basic biology lesson - Homosexuals can reproduce. They can't reproduce with another person of the same sex but there is nothing at all stopping them reproduce with someone of the opposite sex.

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

No but they are rendered useless by the lack of heterosexual activity

So being gay stops you from being able to have intercourse or have donor sperm?

volchitsa

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

That's the definition of homosexuality, not heterosexuals. Correct. Gold star for you.

So Oscar Wilde wasn't really homosexual then?

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

No but they are rendered useless by the lack of heterosexual activity

Try googling "artificial insemination", you might learn an amazing amount.

Kev W

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

That's the definition of homosexuality, not heterosexuals. Correct. Gold star for you.



Completely unrelated.



No but they are rendered useless by the lack of heterosexual activity

So do you actually think of the concept of homosexuality becoming universally accepted as "a thing some people are and that's fine" will lead to all of the human race becoming homosexual and then becoming extinct as a genuine, plausible threat that might actually happen?

lazygal

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

No but they are rendered useless by the lack of heterosexual activity

So women can only ever get pregnant when a man ejaculates inside a woman? Can lesbians never get pregnant, ever then?

Atlantis50

krankykitty wrote: »

Wasn't there someone here saying no pro choice doctors had refuted the Dublin Declaration? Letter from Doctors for Choice in the IT this morning, signed by a variety of doctors, refuting a letter by various signatories of the DD which was printed last week.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/amnesty-international-and-abortion-1.2258863

Ah, so now we know that "Doctors for Choice" consists of five GPs and a Consultant Psychiatrist.

Given that there are approximately 2,500 GPs in Ireland, the fact that only 5 GPs (0.002%) are members of this group and signed off on this letter is extremely telling.

And on the specific issue of the letter, we're supposed to believe them over nine experienced obstetricians? I think not.

Doesn't anyone think it's odd that Dr Rhona Mahony did not add her name to the letter?

lazygal

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Ah, so now we know that "Doctors for Choice" consists of five GPs and a Consultant Psychiatrist.

Given that there are approximately 2,500 GPs in Ireland, the fact that only 5 GPs (0.002%) are members of this group and signed off on this letter is extremely telling.

And we're supposed to believe them over nine experienced obstetricians? I think not.

How many experienced obstetricians haven't signed the Dublin declaration? Would the number be considered a large bulk of the profession?

traprunner

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Ah, so now we know that "Doctors for Choice" consists of five GPs and a Consultant Psychiatrist.

Given that there are approximately 2,500 GPs in Ireland, the fact that only 5 GPs (0.002%) are members of this group and signed off on this letter is extremely telling.

And on the specific issue of the letter, we're supposed to believe them over nine experienced obstetricians? I think not.

Just because someone hasn't signed a letter does not make them supporters of the Dublin Declaration. Quite the opposite seeing that any Tom, Dick or Harry can sign the Dublin Declaration.

traprunner

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Doesn't anyone think it's odd that Dr Rhona Mahony did not add her name to the letter?

Do you know for a fact that she was consulted or even knew about it?

All kinds of crazy on this thread again for the past couple of pages!

Atlantis50

lazygal wrote: »

How many experienced obstetricians haven't signed the Dublin declaration? Would the number be considered a large bulk of the profession?

I don't know, but the principle is simple:

Silence among obstetricians, GPs, and other medical professionals favours the status quo i.e., maintenance of the 8th Amendment.

Atlantis50

traprunner wrote: »

Just because someone hasn't signed a letter does not make them supporters of the Dublin Declaration. Quite the opposite seeing that any Tom, Dick or Harry can sign the Dublin Declaration.

Silence favours the status quo.

Atlantis50

traprunner wrote: »

Do you know for a fact that she was consulted or even knew about it?

All kinds of crazy on this thread again for the past couple of pages!

But why wouldn't she speak out (in whatever format, letter or interview) if she believed the Amnesty report was correct given her prominent role in backing the report?

Godge

Why all the fascination with what doctors think of moral choices?

Their view of the 8th amendment only holds equal value to mine or anyone elses.

lazygal

Atlantis50 wrote: »

I don't know, but the principle is simple:

Silence among obstetricians, GPs, and other medical professionals favours the status quo i.e., maintenance of the 8th Amendment.

How do you know that? Might silence also indicate pragmatism given the approach of the anti abortion brigade to those who disagree with the view that the 8th amendment is a Good Thing for Women?

A bit like that so-called silent no majority in the marriage referendum, the silent assent to the brilliance of telling women they have to stay pregnant unless they have the means and ability to bring the unborn elsewhere to kill might well be a complete myth.

traprunner

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Silence favours the status quo.

Not at all. Silence could be indicative of someone planning their move. But then we do not know what others are thinking...unless you are psychic (if you are you could make a million dollars: http://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html).

Kev W

Atlantis50 wrote: »

But why wouldn't she speak out (in whatever format, letter or interview) if she believed the Amnesty report was correct given her prominent role in backing the report?

Why would she need to, given that she's already backed the report?

SpaceTime

To the posters concerned about gay uteruses - you can relax !

a % of the human population appears to have been gay for pretty much the history of humanity. Historical evidence going back for as long as we have history, yet the human race has prospered so well that it's major risk is that it's sheer scale will overwhelm the planet causing its demise.

If there's one thing humans aren't at risk of its dying out due to lack of population!

There's more to human success that raw reproductive rates too. There's that whole vast social infrastructure of society and technology that supports us. The homosexuality bit in our DNS may well have evolved to somehow support that - remember human success is about raising very slow maturing, very high maintenance off spring. This could well be why you needed extra adults who aren't directly parents.

Evolution tends to stumble on some interesting solutions to things - sometimes removing your dogmatic spectacles and looking at how a species actually functions can be a useful exercise. We're not the noble, lone hunter - we're more like a hippy, chaotic version of the Borg : deeply integrated social species where individuals will actually go insane / be incapable of functioning removed from the group.

Now what all this has to do with a thread on the 8th amendment is another question entirely ...

Atlantis50

traprunner wrote: »

Not at all. Silence could be indicative of someone planning their move. But then we do not know what others are thinking...unless you are psychic (if you are you could make a million dollars: http://web.randi.org/the-million-dollar-challenge.html).

Oh right, so must presume there is a silent majority of Doctors waiting in the wings to call for repeal of the 8th Amendment.

That's more silly than your psychic nonsense.

traprunner

Atlantis50 wrote: »

But why wouldn't she speak out (in whatever format, letter or interview) if she believed the Amnesty report was correct given her prominent role in backing the report?

Have you listened to ALL radio shows, read ALL newspapers, read ALL internet articles, read ALL medical journals? Maybe she has spoken out. Maybe she wrote the letter but it wasn't published. Maybe she is penning it as you read this. Maybe she is on holidays and is not aware that Atlantis50 is demanding a response.

You are getting a bit ridiculous now concentrating on this.

lazygal

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Oh right, so must presume there is a silent majority of Doctors waiting in the wings to call for repeal of the 8th Amendment.

That's more silly than your psychic nonsense.

How do you know every single medical professional working in Ireland who hasn't expressed a view on the eighth amendment publicly thinks its a good thing? Do you think they think its also a good thing that women in Ireland who have the means and ability to travel to kill the unborn have constitutional protection to do so?

Atlantis50

Kev W wrote: »

Why would she need to, given that she's already backed the report?

Because their letter, which included a signatory from a former Master of the National Maternity Hospital constituted an indirect but unambiguous attack on her professional reputation given her prominence in backing the report that includes a gross misrepresentation, and at worst, a callous attempt to discredit and shame Irish obstetricians.

SpaceTime

I'd suspect there's a % of Irish doctors and politicians a bit traumatised by previous campaigns who will sit on the fence on the issue or remain silent because they get torn apart.

The pro life side tends to be particularly aggressive and uses very bullying tactics historically.