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.
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
pilly wrote: » It doesn't appear to say anywhere in that article that mentally challenged people are given abortions without their consent?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
jameorahiely wrote: » Yes, that's the case
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??
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:
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
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.
jameorahiely wrote: » Well first you doubt that it happened, then try an minimise it by portraying it as only one clinic.
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.
jameorahiely wrote: » Would you protest a marie stopes clinic from opening here?
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!?!
Would you protest a marie stopes clinic from opening here?
bubblypop wrote: » Seems a bit premature!
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?
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/282101dc2976956f9dfc87f7a2ef2413.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)