8th Amendment

lazygal

volchitsa wrote: »

The fact remains that had she been in the UK she would have had a termination and would almost certainly be alive today, and quite possibly a mother.

Pro-life? Don't make me laugh.

Don't be getting too emotionally involved now!:pac:

anothernight

am946745 wrote: »

The fact remains the she died from an undetected infection because of Medical misadventure. 14,000 women in Ireland have a miscarriage every year. Many maternal deaths are related to failure to observe simple clinical signs such as fever, headache and changes in pulse rate and blood pressure.

You said previously that doctors should have acted. How should they have acted?

Anyway, are you implying that Ireland has bad healthcare? Try going to the US without money and see how a pregnant women is treated.

conorh91

lazygal wrote: »

Have you signed the declaration, Conor? You do realise anyone can make up any qualifications they like and sign it?

.

Conorh91 wrote:

I'm not simply talking about the signatories on the website linked to. Similar letters have appeared in the Irish Times and other publications from the same doctors.

Black Menorca

anothernight wrote: »

I realise that, and I agree.

Still strange that you suddenly can't answer a simple question because you think your answer is irrelevant, and yet it's apparently not irrelevant enough when the question isn't inconvenient to you.

Nothing inconvenient from my side.

lazygal

So you haven't signed it. Gosh, seems a large bulk of people haven't signed it. For such an important declaration, you'd think medical professionals would be falling over themselves to register their opposition to women in Ireland who can't take a flight to avail of abortion services being given the option not to remain pregnant unless their lives are at risk.

Black Menorca

volchitsa wrote: »

Factually wrong, the investigation into her death found that she needed an abortion.

Really?

Black Menorca

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Savita Halappanavar first asked for an abortion on 23 October 2012, a day after she was told that it would be impossible to save the foetus. At the very least, that's asking for a termination to remove a foetus incompatible with life.

Source

And the relevance to my post you quoted?

conorh91

lazygal wrote: »

So you haven't signed it.

Of course not. I am not a medical professional, let alone an eligible medical professional. I don't consider medical students, nurses, midwives, GPs, or doctors without specialties, to be eligible professionals either. I assume from your previous comments that you agree.

I am concerned about the sheer volume of medical experts with relevant expertise, many of them leading experts in their respective fields, who have had letters published in broadsheet newspapers, and whose names also appear on the Dublin declaration website.

lazygal

conorh91 wrote: »

Of course not. I am not a medical professional, let alone an eligible medical professional. I don't consider medical students, nurses, midwives, GPs, or doctors without specialties, to be eligible professionals either. I assume from your previous comments that you agree.

I am concerned about the sheer volume of medical experts with relevant expertise, many of them leading experts in their respective fields, who have had letters published in broadsheet newspapers, and whose names also appear on the Dublin declaration website.

Is sheer volume the new large bulk?

am946745

volchitsa wrote: »

The fact remains that had she been in the UK she would have had a termination and would almost certainly be alive today, and quite possibly a mother.

Pro-life? Don't make me laugh.

Yet same same infection kills women who have had elective abortions. It was the first death of its kind in the hospital which has delivered 54,000 women.

To focus on this for a wider regime of on demand abortion is not justified. the facts don't support the logic.

conorh91

lazygal wrote: »

Is sheer volume the new large bulk?

Pretty synonymous.

It's not a matter of size in the first place, but if you insist… how big is your bulk?

traprunner

Dublin declaration has been show up as a farce. I can sign it under any name I wish. So you need to find another bone as it has been discredited.

volchitsa

conorh91 wrote: »

Of course not. I am not a medical professional, let alone an eligible medical professional. I don't consider medical students, nurses, midwives, GPs, or doctors without specialties, to be eligible professionals either. I assume from your previous comments that you agree.

I am concerned about the sheer volume of medical experts with relevant expertise, many of them leading experts in their respective fields, who have had letters published in broadsheet newspapers, and whose names also appear on the Dublin declaration website.

Funnily enough I signed it though, as a Jedi Knight. It worked.

conorh91

conorh91 wrote: »

I am concerned about the sheer volume of medical experts with relevant expertise, many of them leading experts in their respective fields, who have had letters published in broadsheet newspapers, and whose names also appear on the Dublin declaration website.

THEN

traprunner wrote: »

Dublin declaration has been show up as a farce. I can sign it under any name I wish.

I repeat, with sincere apologies for anyone who actually reads the thread.

conorh91 wrote: »

I am concerned about the sheer volume of medical experts with relevant expertise, many of them leading experts in their respective fields, who have had letters published in broadsheet newspapers, and whose names also appear on the Dublin declaration website.

volchitsa wrote: »

I signed it though, as a Jedi Knight...

sigh… OK volchista. That's nice for you. I can't reply with the same point individually every single time.

traprunner

conorh91 wrote: »

THEN



I repeat, with sincere apologies for anyone who actually reads the thread.





sigh… OK volchista. That's nice for you. I can't reply with the same point individually every single time.

So I forgot to quote an earlier post of yours where you quoted me. What about it? Don't you see the fact that any Tom, dick or Harry can sign it under whatever name they want totally devalues it?

PopePalpatine

Black Menorca wrote: »

And the relevance to my post you quoted?

You said it would have been immoral to grant Savita's first request for an abortion - i.e., the request that was made the day after she was told her foetus would be incompatible with life.

Are Legatus paying you extra for obstructing discussions?

conorh91

traprunner wrote: »

Don't you see the fact that any Tom, dick or Harry can sign it under whatever name they want totally devalues it?

Are you even being serious?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95987861&postcount=1755

traprunner

conorh91 wrote: »

Are you even being serious?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95987861&postcount=1755

No idea what you are getting at. If it's the fact that the same names appear on letters published then it is still possible that someone could sign pro-choice medical professions on the Dublin declaration too. Nothing appears to be stopping it. So my point still stands.

Black Menorca

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You said it would have been immoral to grant Savita's first request for an abortion - i.e., the request that was made the day after she was told her foetus would be incompatible with life.

Are Legatus paying you extra for obstructing discussions?

Intentionally taking innocent human life is immoral, born or unborn, in my view.

Are you alleging Legatus, a fine and noble organisation, are paying me to post here?

anothernight

Black Menorca wrote: »

Intentionally taking innocent human life is immoral, born or unborn, in my view.

Wait, now your personal opinion is relevant? What happened to being a citizen of the Republic, being therefore subject to the Constitution and all that? Make up your mind.

Black Menorca wrote: »

I am a citizen of the Republic and am therefore subject to the Constitution.

Whether I personally find a referendum result 'acceptable' is irrelevant.

PopePalpatine

Black Menorca wrote: »

Intentionally taking innocent human life is immoral, born or unborn, in my view.

It beats leaving a woman to die. The only way you could advocate something more callous to be done to Savita would be to forcefully convert her to Catholicism on her deathbed.<br />
<br />

Legatus, a fine and noble organisation

.

Black Menorca

anothernight wrote: »

Wait, now your personal opinion is relevant? What happened to being a citizen of the Republic, being therefore subject to the Constitution and all that? Make up your mind.

I am in agreement with the Constitution in defending life, born and unborn.

conorh91

traprunner wrote: »

If it's the fact that the same names appear on letters published then it is still possible that someone could sign pro-choice medical professions on the Dublin declaration too.

They had the same message. This is delving into the ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure if an obstetrician or another specialist's name appeared in the letter pages of The Irish Times or any of the other publications, it would be corrected quick-smart.

Do you doubt the identity of the four or five GPs who signed the Doctors For Choice letter to The Irish Times too?

Well perhaps you lot might. It's so irrelevant, you've nothing to lose.

johnnyskeleton

PopePalatine, Black Menorca, cut it out

ProfessorPlum

Black Menorca wrote: »

Intentionally taking innocent human life is immoral, born or unborn, in my view.

Honestly, no mater what anyones opinion on abortion is, I find it immoral that a dying foetus' 'life' is valued equally to the life of the pregnant woman.

It is immoral that the life of that dying foetus is more important than the threat to health of the woman, no mater how serious.

How can anyone stand over such a situation and consider themselves moral beings?
I really just don't understand it.

Black Menorca

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Honestly, no mater what anyones opinion on abortion is, I find it immoral that a dying foetus' 'life' is valued equally to the life of the pregnant woman.

It is immoral that the life of that dying foetus is more important than the threat to health of the woman, no mater how serious.

How can anyone stand over such a situation and consider themselves moral beings?
I really just don't understand it.

I disagree.

However where there is a physical threat to a mother's life, a termination is of course justified, even if an unintended consequence is the sad death of her baby girl or boy.

conorh91

Black Menorca wrote: »

However where there is a physical threat to a mother's life, a termination is of course justified, even if an unintended consequence is the sad death of her baby girl or boy.

In 1983 you would have been considered by some to be an extreme liberal for saying that.

But that wasn't enough. After 1992, we were told that the protection of Life During Pregnancy Act was what we needed. It wasn't just a slippery slope.

It was passed. Still not enough. Now the 2013 Act is out of the way, all that's apparently needed is abortion in cases of rape or incest (with the accused presumed guilty?)

Careful you don't slip down that slope....

volchitsa

Black Menorca wrote: »

I disagree.

However where there is a physical threat to a mother's life, a termination is of course justified, even if an unintended consequence is the sad death of her baby girl or boy.

Why "of course"? Are the two lives of exactly equal worth or not?

If the fetus can be saved at the cost of the mother's life, shouldn't that be the choice made, let's say, 50% of the time? According to your logic it should.

Black Menorca

volchitsa wrote: »

Why "of course"? Are the two lives of exactly equal worth or not?

If the fetus can be saved at the cost of the mother's life, shouldn't that be the choice made, let's say, 50% of the time? According to your logic it should.

It's all about intent. Always has been for me.

volchitsa

Black Menorca wrote: »

It's all about intent. Always has been for me.

But if your intent is to save the fetus, and this "unfortunately results in the woman's death", what's the difference as far as you're concerned?

Seeing as you claim the two should be considered equally, that is.

Or do you?