Strike For Repeal?

mahamageehad

mahamageehad wrote: »

It's a fair point. It doesn't justify the slippery slope argument though in my opinion. It further strengthens my view that legislation around abortion, if introduced would need to be carefully evaluated. Many countries have abortion policies that allow limited choice while keeping stringent safeguards in place. I imagine people use the parallel of the UK as it's where most Irish women end up to get abortions, but I doubt most are actually familiar with abortion law in the UK. I'm certainly not. I thought it was on-demand up to a certain time (first trimester). I didn't realise there needed to be "medical" grounds for it and two doctors needed to sign off on it. It's certainly never talked about in that way.

Kinda my point though. There's speeches from the time (warnings) about how it was gonna go. A lot of people won't know much about it but it's ripe for quote minings etc.

mzungu

jameorahiely wrote: »

I was reading a good article the other day about conveyer belt abortions in the uk. The doctor signs all the forms without meeting the patient. The receptionist will change your reason for getting one to a reason acceptable under law. And off you go. 26 seconds was the average "consultation" The foetus remains are thrown in open bins and mentally challemged people are given abortions without their consent. Women who do decide to give birth to a disabled child are looked down on and asked why didn't they just kill their child.


Fascinating stuff

That reminds me about some other stuff I came across about abortions in the UK. Take these articles for example:

Ninety per cent of people in the UK who know their child will be born with Down's syndrome have an abortion - so there are concerns a new, highly accurate test to identify babies with the condition, will lead to even more terminations.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-37500189

Same thing appears to be happening in Denmark:

The number of children born with Down Syndrome (DS) in Denmark has fallen drastically in recent years – so much so that the disorder could be a thing of the past in 30 years.

Since 2004 all pregnant women have been offered a DS scan – called a nuchal scan – and the number of abortions involving DS children has increased dramatically. Last year, 98 percent of pregnant women who were revealed to be carrying an unborn child with DS chose to have an abortion.

http://cphpost.dk/news/down-syndrome-heading-for-extinction-in-denmark.html

...and in Iceland:

Prof Peter McParland, the director of Foetal Maternal Medicine at the National Maternity Hospital, Dublin, said new non-invasive techniques involving blood samples, which can separate the DNA of a mother from her unborn child, has had a huge impact and were a powerful tool for screening.

He told members of the assembly that said non-invasive screening procedures (NIPT) can now detect chromosomal conditions such as Down syndrome or Edwards syndrome to an accuracy level of 99 per cent.

As a result there has been no baby born with Down syndrome in Iceland in the last four years since the screening programme was brought in, while in Denmark, which has a similar screening programme, only a handful of babies have been born with the condition.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/citizens-assembly-offers-wide-views-on-abortion-law-changes-1.2929274

Presumably, the anti-abortion lobby will paint the above as eugenics. Will the pro-choice position on this matter change from what it is at the moment to bring the middle ground with them? Currently, this is their position:

Should abortions be allowed for someone who knows their baby will have a serious illness, condition or disability?

Abortion should be available where a woman asks for one. If a woman feels unable to raise a child with a serious illness or condition she should be entitled to an abortion if she feels that is the right choice for her.

We should not be here to judge the decisions made by women but rather ensure they have the agency and legal right to make those decisions. Whatever the reason for abortion the pregnant person is the best position to make decisions about their own circumstances and capacity.

Abortion due to disability or serious illness in the foetus is rare. A study carried out in 2009 in the UK showed that only 1% of abortions were carried out due to disability.

- See more at: http://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/2016/08/06/abortion-faqs/#sthash.RI2PxO0d.dpuf

The bit in bold is interesting, as they are figures from 2009 and the study is not named so I can't verify the 1%. Nevertheless, we know that 90% are terminated in the UK (or 84% according to this article). Whichever way you choose to look at, the figure is quite high.

Would the current pro-choice position fly with voters in Ireland? It might very well do, but it is one hell of a tough sell.

volchitsa

jameorahiely wrote: »

I was reading a good article the other day about conveyer belt abortions in the uk. The doctor signs all the forms without meeting the patient. The receptionist will change your reason for getting one to a reason acceptable under law. And off you go. 26 seconds was the average "consultation" The foetus remains are thrown in open bins and mentally challemged people are given abortions without their consent. Women who do decide to give birth to a disabled child are looked down on and asked why didn't they just kill their child.


Fascinating stuff

No link I suppose?

It just seems hard to credit that with all the regulations about disposing of possibly contaminated human blood, organs etc, since the HIV and hepatitis scandals, it could possibly be legal for fetuses to be dumped in "open bins" nowadays?

mzungu

volchitsa wrote: »

No link I suppose?

It just seems hard to credit that with all the regulations about disposing of possibly contaminated human blood, organs etc, since the HIV and hepatitis scandals, it could possibly be legal for fetuses to be dumped in "open bins" nowadays?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4284290/Marie-Stopes-abortions-signed-just-phonecall.html

pilly

mzungu wrote: »

That reminds me about some other stuff I came across about abortions in the UK. Take these articles for example:


Same thing appears to be happening in Denmark:


...and in Iceland:


Presumably, the anti-abortion lobby will paint the above as eugenics. Will the pro-choice position on this matter change from what it is at the moment to bring the middle ground with them? Currently, this is their position:

The bit in bold is interesting, as they are figures from 2009 and the study is not named so I can't verify the 1%. Nevertheless, we know that 90% are terminated in the UK (or 84% according to this article). Whichever way you choose to look at, the figure is quite high.

Would the current pro-choice position fly with voters in Ireland? It might very well do, but it is one hell of a tough sell.

90% of the small number of people who take the test would certainly come to 1% or less, the two aren't contradictory.

Grayson

There happens to be an interesting article in the guardian today. It's written by a stand up comic and it's about the termination she had when she was 17. Why she had it and what it felt like.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/10/moment-changed-me-abortion-age-17-choice

mzungu

pilly wrote: »

90% of the small number of people who take the test would certainly come to 1% or less, the two aren't contradictory.

Aye, probably not contradictory, but 90% being terminated is still a high figure. I guess we will have to wait and see how that one is presented to the public when the time comes.

Grayson

mzungu wrote: »

Aye, probably not contradictory, but 90% of all cases being terminated is still a high figure. I guess we will have to wait and see how that one is presented to the public when the time comes.

This is the thing thoughj. Even though the vast majority of cases have nothing to do with this, it will still be a key issue. The pro life brigade will make sure to bring it up (they'd be stupid not to).

Most people on this thread are pretty informed. They know the laws and a lot of facts. However most voters won't be as well informed and emotive issues will be a determining factor in their decision.

pilly

It's true, this happens on both sides of the debate though.

What's the phrase "bad cases make poor law" or something like that.

You can't legislate for every single scenario.

mahamageehad

Absolam wrote: »

Well, the Supreme Court has already ruled it begins at implantation, so no need to struggle unless we have a referendum on the point, in which I'd say vote your conscience.

So presumably then by that logic the morning after pill is allowed because it prevents implantation? Fair enough, I can follow that logic.

Grayson wrote: »

The investigation into Savita did place the blame on the 8th. There were over 20 points of failure in her treatment. Each led to her death. However the HIQA report into the events did say that if the pregnancy had been terminated when she requested it, she would have probably survived. It also stated that at that point the best treatment was a termination. And that she was refused it because of the 8th.

The report is here. I'd recommend reading it.
https://www.hiqa.ie/reports-and-publications/key-reports-and-investigations/patient-safety-investigation-report

Pro lifers like to point out it was a string of failures in care that lead to her death. They're right, if she had been given proper care it probably have never reached the point where she needed a termination. However that ignores the point that she did need a termination to save her life at one point.

To be fair I think his point is that pro-choice campaigners tend to focus in on one of a myriad of reasons in order to further their point. I think the 8th had some part to play, but it was one of many. She did need a termination to save her life at one point, but had she been properly cared for it may never have gotten to that point.

Deleted User wrote: »

Kinda my point though. There's speeches from the time (warnings) about how it was gonna go. A lot of people won't know much about it but it's ripe for quote minings etc.

I'll certainly look into it. Unless I'm missing something though, on the surface it looks like the UK government allowed the current lax system to take shape? So, based on that, theoretically if a severe right wing government was elected there tomorrow, they could start a massive clampdown and force two doctors to prove medical necessity? (In that case it would be almost as strict as Ireland but potentially allowing for severe emotional trauma and FFA.) Based on a lack of push for that, could one assume that the majority of English people are perfectly happy with the current status quo (bar the contentious issue of who's paying)?

mzungu wrote: »

Presumably, the anti-abortion lobby will paint the above as eugenics. Will the pro-choice position on this matter change from what it is at the moment to bring the middle ground with them? Currently, this is their position:

The bit in bold is interesting, as they are figures from 2009 and the study is not named so I can't verify the 1%. Nevertheless, we know that 90% are terminated in the UK (or 84% according to this article). Whichever way you choose to look at, the figure is quite high.

Would the current pro-choice position fly with voters in Ireland? It might very well do, but it is one hell of a tough sell.

Here's some up to date figures. In 2015 in the UK, 3,213 abortions (2%) were carried out under ground E (risk that the child would be born ‘seriously handicapped’). You can argue that it's eugenics, you can also argue that it's evolution. My opinion, although it's likely to not be popular, is that a woman should have a right to choose in that case. A seriously handicapped child is a different level of commitment as many need care for life. I wouldn't judge someone in that position. Those women weren't forced to make that choice, they chose to.

jameorahiely

pilly wrote: »

It doesn't appear to say anywhere in that article that mentally challenged people are given abortions without their consent?

volchitsa wrote: »

No link I suppose?

It just seems hard to credit that with all the regulations about disposing of possibly contaminated human blood, organs etc, since the HIV and hepatitis scandals, it could possibly be legal for fetuses to be dumped in "open bins" nowadays?

It's all in the cqc reports for the marie stopes clinic
The original report is on line but here's a snippet
Staff at Britain’s biggest abortion provider tried to give a vulnerable woman a termination even though she did not understand what was going on, a damning report has found.

Inspectors were forced to intervene as the patient with learning disabilities became distressed, amid a catalogue of failings uncovered at Marie Stopes clinics across the country.

Watchdogs described horrific scenes which left patients at risk of infection, with foetal tissue from a succession of terminations left in open waste bins, in one clinic.

And they said the abortion provider - which sees 70,000 women a year - was failing to ensure rules on consent were followed.

At one clinic, in Norwich, doctors were found to be “bulk signing” up to 60 consent forms at a time, with little indication that they were familiar with a patient’s situation. At another, in Sandwell, West Midlands, inspectors found “poor and insensitive” handling of a patient with learning difficulties who did not understand what was going on.

And inspectors who visited the headquarters of the charity found poor risk management, insufficient monitoring of consent and limited clinical oversight of the charity’s 60 clinics.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/20/watchdogs-release-damning-reports-marie-stopes-abortion-clinics/


I thought the abortion people would be all over that.

mzungu

mahamageehad wrote: »

Here's some up to date figures. In 2015 in the UK, 3,213 abortions (2%) were carried out under ground E (risk that the child would be born ‘seriously handicapped’). You can argue that it's eugenics, you can also argue that it's evolution. My opinion, although it's likely to not be popular, is that a woman should have a right to choose in that case. A seriously handicapped child is a different level of commitment as many need care for life. I wouldn't judge someone in that position. Those women weren't forced to make that choice, they chose to.

It is the decision of woman involved and nobody else's concern. But when the TV and radio debates get down to business, how will those things play out? Personally, I don't think it is eugenics, but I do think it will be presented that way by pro-life lobby groups. Throw in the 100% rate in Iceland, 90% in the UK and Denmark and you have a big case to argue for in a live debate. It was said a few posts above, and I agree, it could be one of the big battlegrounds that could sway it either way.

mahamageehad

mzungu wrote: »

It is the decision of woman involved and nobody else's concern. But when the TV and radio debates get down to business, how will those things play out? Personally, I don't think it is eugenics, but I do think it will be presented that way by pro-life lobby groups. Throw in the 100% rate in Iceland, 90% in the UK and Denmark and you have a big case to argue for in a live debate. It was said a few posts above, and I agree, it could be one of the big battlegrounds that could sway it either way.

Yeah of course, they'd be stupid not to use it. Similarly on the pro-choice side, it's almost guaranteed a rape victim will be used as a spokesperson and rallying point at some point, it's just marketing. Emotive edge cases are what drive the majority of people's decisions. Although there's many people here that I disagree with, I've been pleasantly surprised how civil and measured the majority of the conversation has been. Gives me some hope.

In the US right now, there's a case where a woman (celebrity I think) is being sued by her unborn embryos for the right to life using the argument that life starts are fertilisation. Pro repeal or not, that's a mad case. I think advances in technology are going to bring more and more of these bizarre cases in future that'll force people to reconsider or at least examine what exactly their beliefs are.

jameorahiely

mahamageehad wrote: »

Yeah of course, they'd be stupid not to use it. Similarly on the pro-choice side, it's almost guaranteed a rape victim will be used as a spokesperson and rallying point at some point, it's just marketing. Emotive edge cases are what drive the majority of people's decisions. Although there's many people here that I disagree with, I've been pleasantly surprised how civil and measured the majority of the conversation has been. Gives me some hope.

In the US right now, there's a case where a woman (celebrity I think) is being sued by her unborn embryos for the right to life using the argument that life starts are fertilisation. Pro repeal or not, that's a mad case. I think advances in technology are going to bring more and more of these bizarre cases in future that'll force people to reconsider or at least examine what exactly their beliefs are.

That's an interesting case. Her body is not used as an incubator (or whatever the term is). She's not being forced to be pregnant or any of the other reasons the pro repeal side use. In order for it to be an embryo, there was more than her genetic material "inputted". Yet she seems to want to be able to claim "ownership". It'll be an interesting outcome.

mahamageehad

jameorahiely wrote: »

That's an interesting case. Her body is not used as an incubator (or whatever the term is). She's not being forced to be pregnant or any of the other reasons the pro repeal side use. In order for it to be an embryo, there was more than her genetic material "inputted". Yet she seems to want to be able to claim "ownership". It'll be an interesting outcome.

Agreed it'll be interesting. Are you sure we're talking about the same case though? I'm talking about Sofia Vergara, she's not trying to claim ownership, he is. She created embryos with her ex-husband and she refused to give permission for them to be implanted in a surrogate. "The new lawsuit argues that the embryos are being deprived of their inheritance from a trust by not being born."

In general, as CRISPR techniques evolve and genetic screening becomes more commonplace, as a society we're going to have a lot of tough questions to answer.

volchitsa

jameorahiely wrote: »

It's all in the cqc reports for the marie stopes clinic
The original report is on line but here's a snippet
Staff at Britain’s biggest abortion provider tried to give a vulnerable woman a termination even though she did not understand what was going on, a damning report has found.

Inspectors were forced to intervene as the patient with learning disabilities became distressed, amid a catalogue of failings uncovered at Marie Stopes clinics across the country.

Watchdogs described horrific scenes which left patients at risk of infection, with foetal tissue from a succession of terminations left in open waste bins, in one clinic.

And they said the abortion provider - which sees 70,000 women a year - was failing to ensure rules on consent were followed.

At one clinic, in Norwich, doctors were found to be “bulk signing” up to 60 consent forms at a time, with little indication that they were familiar with a patient’s situation. At another, in Sandwell, West Midlands, inspectors found “poor and insensitive” handling of a patient with learning difficulties who did not understand what was going on.

And inspectors who visited the headquarters of the charity found poor risk management, insufficient monitoring of consent and limited clinical oversight of the charity’s 60 clinics.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/20/watchdogs-release-damning-reports-marie-stopes-abortion-clinics/


I thought the abortion people would be all over that.

And that was all illegal, I gather? They were sanctioned for that?

Only you appeared to be saying that this was the current situation in the UK and that everyone was ok with that, when in fact it's actually a case of malpractice for which the clinic(s) involved were severely criticized for and told to put right?

So, what's your point? That malpractice in one hospital means that particular medical intervention should be made illegal? Ireland's hospitals would probably close down immediately in that case.

jameorahiely

volchitsa wrote: »

And that was all illegal, I gather? They were sanctioned for that?

Only you appeared to be saying that this was the current situation in the UK and that everyone was ok with that, when in fact it's actually a case of malpractice for which the clinic(s) involved were severely criticized for and told to put right?

So, what's your point? That malpractice in one hospital means that particular medical intervention should be made illegal? Ireland's hospitals would probably close down immediately in that case.

It wasn't just one clinic. Is 2016 not current enough for you? Have you critised it? I doubt it since this seems to be the first you've heard of it and rush to make excuses and defend it :rolleyes:

jameorahiely

mahamageehad wrote: »

Agreed it'll be interesting. Are you sure we're talking about the same case though? I'm talking about Sofia Vergara, she's not trying to claim ownership, he is. She created embryos with her ex-husband and she refused to give permission for them to be implanted in a surrogate. "The new lawsuit argues that the embryos are being deprived of their inheritance from a trust by not being born."

In general, as CRISPR techniques evolve and genetic screening becomes more commonplace, as a society we're going to have a lot of tough questions to answer.

Yes, that's the case

mahamageehad

jameorahiely wrote: »

Yes, that's the case

We're pretty far off topic here, so just one last question. You've said that she wants to claim ownership? How in the name of Jebus is that the case? She doesn't want an embryo she created in the past with an ex put in another woman. I can understand that from a human perspective, then there's the additional dimension of her celebrity status and a potential claim by a baby she doesn't want to have??

jameorahiely

mahamageehad wrote: »

We're pretty far off topic here, so just one last question. You've said that she wants to claim ownership? How in the name of Jebus is that the case? She doesn't want an embryo she created in the past with an ex put in another woman. I can understand that from a human perspective, then there's the additional dimension of her celebrity status and a potential claim by a baby she doesn't want to have??

It's the case because it took more than her genetic material to create the embryo. Why does/should she have more say in what happens to it than her ex? They both contributed equally to it's formation.


A potential claim by a baby she doesn't want to have... Sure that happens men the whole time. Usually the response given is "then don't have sex if you're worried about it" in this particular case maybe the response would be "well don't go be going to ivf clinics and making embryos"


It will be a test of how willing we are to accept equality

ToddyDoody

Did it work?

ie are the govt running terrified?

volchitsa

jameorahiely wrote: »

It wasn't just one clinic. Is 2016 not current enough for you? Have you critised it? I doubt it since this seems to be the first you've heard of it and rush to make excuses and defend it :rolleyes:

How am I making excuses? It's not acceptable in the UK and they were sanctioned for it. It's proof that this is not acceptable, so it's just another example of medical malpractice being brought to light and dealt with.

And we have plenty of our own cases of malpractice, many of which have not been dealt with in nearly so exemplary a way by our own inspectorate or institutions. As the "Grace" case proves.

volchitsa

jameorahiely wrote: »

It's the case because it took more than her genetic material to create the embryo. Why does/should she have more say in what happens to it than her ex? They both contributed equally to it's formation.


A potential claim by a baby she doesn't want to have... Sure that happens men the whole time. Usually the response given is "then don't have sex if you're worried about it" in this particular case maybe the response would be "well don't go be going to ivf clinics and making embryos"


It will be a test of how willing we are to accept equality

Unless I'm mistaken, it's perfectly egalitarian though, because the law says that both couples have to give their consent for the implantation to go ahead - that was the problem that Diane Blood had some years back, when she was banned from using sperm samples taken from her husband while he was already critically ill and could not sign a consent form, even though her parents in law and everyone else agreed that they had been trying to start a family.

jameorahiely

volchitsa wrote: »

How am I making excuses? It's not acceptable in the UK and they were sanctioned for it. It's proof that this is not acceptable, so it's just another example of medical malpractice being brought to light and dealt with.

And we have plenty of our own cases of malpractice, many of which have not been dealt with in nearly so exemplary a way by our own inspectorate or institutions. As the "Grace" case proves.

Well first you doubt that it happened, then try an minimise it by portraying it as only one clinic.



I thought there probably would have been a big thread on it here, with solutions on how we could safegaurd the same happening here. I did a search... and discovered the repeal side got the thread shut down. A culture of silence, disingenuous half truths and outright lies seemd to be what the repeal are basing their campaign on.

volchitsa

jameorahiely wrote: »

Well first you doubt that it happened, then try an minimise it by portraying it as only one clinic.

No, I doubted that it could be considered acceptable practice, and I was right.
And I didn't say anything about it being only one clinic.

You've completely failed to explain how a report that criticizes medical malpractice is somehow an indictment of the medical procedure itself.

jameorahiely

volchitsa wrote: »

No, I doubted that it could be considered acceptable practice, and I was right.
And I didn't say anything about it being only one clinic.

You've completely failed to explain how a report that criticizes medical malpractice is somehow an indictment of the medical procedure itself.

Lol so your "no link, I suppose" and your "I find it hard to credit.. " really sugests you believed.

Maybe I failed to explain that because I wasn't trying to explain that It's bizarre the way you are trying to twist the thread when it's all there in print. But whatever you feel you need to do!?!


Would you protest a marie stopes clinic from opening here?

jameorahiely

jameorahiely wrote: »

Would you protest a marie stopes clinic from opening here?

Seems a bit premature!

volchitsa

jameorahiely wrote: »

Lol so your "no link, I suppose" and your "I find it hard to credit.. " really sugests you believed.

Maybe I failed to explain that because I wasn't trying to explain that It's bizarre the way you are trying to twist the thread when it's all there in print. But whatever you feel you need to do!?!

No idea what your point is, are you still trying to make out this was thought to be acceptable behaviour in the UK?

Would you protest a marie stopes clinic from opening here?

No. Just as I don't want GUH closed down just because of Savita Halappanavar's death, do you?

I want all clinics and hospitals to follow optimum medical practice. I don't think they necessarily have to be closed down if they ever get it wrong though.
Do you?

jameorahiely

bubblypop wrote: »

Seems a bit premature!

A fascinating response

volchitsa wrote: »

No idea what your point is, are you still trying to make out this was thought to be acceptable behaviour in the UK?



No. Just as I don't want GUH closed down just because of Savita Halappanavar's death, do you?

I want all clinics and hospitals to follow optimum medical practice. I don't think they necessarily have to be closed down if they ever get it wrong though.
Do you?

GUH don't only provide abortions, why would I want it shut down, bizarre. A more apt comparison would be letting the nuns run child care homes, even they buried their foetal remains.


Marie Stopes specialise in providing abortions. If it was legalised here they would be opening clinics, as they have done in the north. You can't seem to bring yourself to condem their actions. Fascinating.

jameorahiely

jameorahiely wrote: »

Marie Stopes specialise in providing abortions. If it was legalised here they would be opening clinics, as they have done in the north.

What would be wrong with abortion clinics, if it was legal here?
It's been said numerous times on this thread that people wouldn't be happy with our health services providing the service free, so therefore why wouldn't a clinic open?