end of the road wrote: » if you believe i'm wrong, tell me yourself.
pilly wrote: » Here's as simple an explanation as I can give to debunk the absolutely nutters idea that abortion costs more than birth. 1 or 2 doctors appointments versus 10 months of healthcare. Can someone please explain to EOTR cause I haven't the energy nor inclination.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » So basically you want an inequality of wealthier women who can have abortions and poorer women that can't; despite the fact that having the child might actually cause further poverty and deprivation of the woman, her existing child and her baby. What about poorer with FFAs? Should we really continue this sick disgusting charade of this state of forcing them to bring their babies to term in order to die a few days later. The 8th doesnt save those babies and treats their mothers completely inhumanely and marginalises them even further because of their socio economic status. A friend of mine had an FFA. She couldnt afford to travel. The inhumamity of this is beyond me. Pro forced birthers are all very moralistic about the life itself but never consider at all the circumstances of what the baby is being born into.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Bizarre. You are ok with a pro choice stance. Not on my Island. NIMBYISM at its worst.
end of the road wrote: » there is plenty of money to improve the services. without abortion on demand that means money doesn't have to be taken to fund it.
end of the road wrote: » the reality is we cannot stop someone going abroad to procure one,
end of the road wrote: » that is why things as they are work well, those who want abortions can avail of them
end of the road wrote: » which means it stops some abortions. poorer women will continue to struggle to afford an abortion even if it was legislated for in ireland, unless the tax payer ends up forking out for it, which will likely mean other treatments which would be necessary seeing funding reduced, or new necessary treatments not being able to be funded. the irish state can't afford abortion on demand, there are actual important issues which the health service needs to fund. anyone who has an abortion on demand basically. they are doing it because the pregnancy is inconvenient to them. so i can see why one would come to the conclusion that it's used as a form of birth control. we aren't talking about people having abortions due to necessary reasons such as threat to life, being denied life saving treatment, issues where the baby could cause a disability or cases where the baby cannot be caried to term.
end of the road wrote: » i have to be realistic, and the reality is we cannot stop I don't want to stop someone going abroad to procure one
end of the road wrote: » it's not feasible as other people would be effected if the state tried to implement such a plan.
Simi wrote: » You also seem to be entirely fine with abortion, so long as it doesn't happen here.
Simi wrote: » Even going so far as to say that women should be provided with aftercare on their return from their illegal (under current Irish law) abortion abroad.
end of the road wrote: » no, but the extreme element of the pro-life campaign could make abortion provision very difficult. in terms of private abortion clynics at least. none of us want the extreme element ramping up. so the best thing is to not legislate for it and let those who want an abortion for non-necessary reasons procure it abroad and provide any emergency after care here.
pitifulgod wrote: » The committee concluded we need to legislate. Medical experts across the country also think we need to legislate. So we will be getting a referendum and if it passes, you'll just have to get over it. You won't get to decide what is necessary.
volchitsa wrote: » Nobody is killing babies.
volchitsa wrote: » As to your claim that the money for abortions would have to come from other services, why wouldn't it come from the budget for maternity care? A pregnancy that ends at 9 weeks costs the health service a fraction of what it would cost to force the woman to remain pregnant.
end of the road wrote: » Kurtosis wrote: » That is whatabouttery. No one is suggesting defunding palliative care. If you're looking to make savings on "unnecessary" healthcare, what about erectile dysfunction drugs which are funded by the state? Also, if you're making a spurious economic argument, where will the money come from for the massive improvement of existing systems? there is plenty of money to improve the services. without abortion on demand that means money doesn't have to be taken to fund it. pitifulgod wrote: » Your point was simply wrong though. It costs substantially more to give birth. So paying the cost of a pill that's not extraordinarily expensive, it's not gonna ruin anyone's medical treatment. The point simply isn't valid. You don't argue that a person giving birth is taking away from another person's medical treatment... This is merely medical treatment that you're not comfortable with. no it's the killing of babies for non-necessary reasons that shouldn't be and doesn't need to be legislated for, allowed within the state and funded by the state. and of course money would be taken from something worth while to fund it if it was legislated for and the state had to fund it. that is why things as they are work well, those who want abortions can avail of them and fund it themselves, or receive funding from non-state sources. and the state doesn't have to provide abortion bar extreme circumstances.
Kurtosis wrote: » That is whatabouttery. No one is suggesting defunding palliative care. If you're looking to make savings on "unnecessary" healthcare, what about erectile dysfunction drugs which are funded by the state? Also, if you're making a spurious economic argument, where will the money come from for the massive improvement of existing systems?
pitifulgod wrote: » Your point was simply wrong though. It costs substantially more to give birth. So paying the cost of a pill that's not extraordinarily expensive, it's not gonna ruin anyone's medical treatment. The point simply isn't valid. You don't argue that a person giving birth is taking away from another person's medical treatment... This is merely medical treatment that you're not comfortable with.
end of the road wrote: » there is plenty of money to improve the services. without abortion on demand that means money doesn't have to be taken to fund it. no it's the killing of babies for non-necessary reasons that shouldn't be and doesn't need to be legislated for, allowed within the state and funded by the state. and of course money would be taken from something worth while to fund it if it was legislated for and the state had to fund it. that is why things as they are work well, those who want abortions can avail of them and fund it themselves, or receive funding from non-state sources. and the state doesn't have to provide abortion bar extreme circumstances.
end of the road wrote: » it ultimately would as the money for abortion on demand couldn't come from another part of the budget. having children may cost the tax payer money but those children have the potential to contribute to society and the majority will.
end of the road wrote: » the state has to prioritize. treatment for someone who is going to die, or an abortion because someone doesn't feel like they can look after a child, for which there are systems in place to deal with (all be it they need massive improvement)
pitifulgod wrote: » Poorer women will rely on the public health service so forcing them to have the baby against their will inevitably cost money. So allowing them to have an abortion would not take away from other medical services...
pitifulgod wrote: » In relation to what you define as necessary reasons. I have friends who have had abortions. They were not in the right place in life to have children. That's a reasonable reason to me even if it makes you uncomfortable.
NuMarvel wrote: » Pregnant women who don't have abortions are still accessing the health service anyway, so there's no additional funding burden. From a purely economic point of view, abortions are probably less resource intensive because the majority can be performed outside of an in-patient setting, such as a clinc, a GP's surgery, or even at home. And before anyone somehow misinterprets me, this isn't an argument to allow access to abortion; it's pointing out the flaws in EOTR's thinking.
end of the road wrote: » which means it stops some abortions. poorer women will continue to struggle to afford an abortion even if it was legislated for in ireland, unless the tax payer ends up forking out for it, which will likely mean other treatments which would be necessary seeing funding reduced, or new necessary treatments not being able to be funded. the irish state can't afford abortion on demand, there are actual important issues which the health service needs to fund.
thee glitz wrote: » They show that a relatively small proportion of those getting abortions done to their babies are Irish. Will do. It's not legally a crime when committed in Britain, though I believe the proper procedures in determining eligibility are often not followed. It's not just passing the buck either, unless there's an explicit agreement that the UK will cater to Irish abortion requests. We can only legislate for here, can't stop women fleeing the country. Well we could, but would that be proportionate... That doesn't mean we should adopt the laws of other countries. Rejoin the UK anyone? The British stats show that less Irish women (per capita) than British present for abortions on their babies over there. Not sure what that proves but it suggests that the 8th has some effect (illegal pills aside). For your everyday lifestyle abortion 'mother', I've better things to care about.
thee glitz wrote: » The British stats show that less Irish women (per capita) than British present for abortions on their babies over there. Not sure what that proves but it suggests that the 8th has some effect (illegal pills aside).
thee glitz wrote: » For your everyday lifestyle abortion 'mother', I've better things to care about.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Unfortunately many cannot go through with their decision because they are poor. Really all the 8th amendment does is marginalises poorer women and gives wealthier women more options.
Sin City wrote: » Whats an everyday lifestyle abortion mother? As in a mother that uses abortions as birth control?
thee glitz wrote: » I don't think we were talking about consent to procedures during pregnancy and birth, certainly I wasn't, but I'll have another look. What seems to being disguised is a hard-on for the legalisation of any reason abortion in the name of general healthcare. Afford reasonable protection to babies from their mothers and people would vote to replace the 8th.
What are your opinions on how the 8th currently affects maternity care and the concept of consent, in Ireland?
Sin City wrote: » We can never allow another Savita Halappanavar tragedy again
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Sir, – The recent inquest on Savita Halappanavar has raised important issues about hospital infection in obstetrics. Much of the public attention appears to have been directed at the expert opinion of Dr Peter Boylan who suggested that Irish law prevented necessary treatment to save Ms Halappanavar’s life. We would suggest that this is a personal view, not an expert one. Furthermore, it is impossible for Dr Boylan, or for any doctor, to predict with certainty the clinical course and outcome in the case of Savita Halappanavar where sepsis arose from the virulent and multi drug-resistant organism, E.coli ESBL. What we can say with certainty is that where ruptured membranes are accompanied by any clinical or bio-chemical marker of infection, Irish obstetricians understand they CAN intervene with early delivery of the baby if necessary. Unfortunately, the inquest shows that in Galway University Hospital the diagnosis of chorioamnionitis was delayed and relevant information was not noted and acted upon. The facts as produced at the inquest show this tragic case to be primarily about the management of sepsis, and Dr Boylan’s opinion on the effect of Irish law did not appear to be shared by the coroner, or the jury, of the inquest. Additionally there are many well-documented fatalities from sepsis in women following termination of pregnancy. To concentrate on the legal position regarding abortion in the light of such a case as that in Galway does not assist our services to pregnant women. It is clear that maternal mortality in developed countries is rising, in the US, Canada, Britain, Denmark, Netherlands and other European countries. The last Confidential Enquiry in Britain (which now includes Ireland) recommended a “return to basics” and stated that many maternal deaths are related to failure to observe simple clinical signs such as fever, headache and changes in pulse rate and blood pressure. Many of the failings highlighted in Galway have been described before in these and other reports. The additional problem of multi-resistant organisms causing infection, largely as a result of antibiotic use and abuse, is a serious cause of concern and may lead to higher death rates in all areas of medicine. Ireland’s maternal health record is one of the best in the world in terms of our low rate of maternal death (including Galway hospital). The case in Galway was one of the worst cases of sepsis ever experienced in that hospital, and the diagnosis of ESBL septicaemia was almost unprecedented among Irish maternity units. It is important that all obstetrical units in Ireland reflect on the findings of the events in Galway and learn how to improve care for pregnant women. To reduce it to a polemical argument about abortion may lead to more – not fewer – deaths in the future. – Yours sincerely, Dr. John Monaghan, DCH FRCPI FRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist Dr. Cyril Thornton, MB BCh MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist Dr. Eamon Mc Guinness, MB BCh MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist Dr. Trevor Hayes, MB BCh FRCS MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist Dr. Chris King, MB DCH MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist Dr. Eileen Reilly, MB ChB MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist Prof John Bonnar, MD FRCPI FRCOG Professor Emeritus Obstetrics & Gynaecology Prof Eamon O’Dwyer, MB MAO LLB FRCPI FRCOG Professor Emeritus Obstetrics & Gynaecology Prof Stephen Cusack, MB BCh FRCSI Consultant in Emergency Medicine Dr. Rory Page, MB BCh FFA RCSI Consultant Anaesthetist Dr. James Clair, MB BCh PhD FRCPath Consultant Microbiologist
Sir, – The recent inquest on Savita Halappanavar has raised important issues about hospital infection in obstetrics. Much of the public attention appears to have been directed at the expert opinion of Dr Peter Boylan who suggested that Irish law prevented necessary treatment to save Ms Halappanavar’s life. We would suggest that this is a personal view, not an expert one. Furthermore, it is impossible for Dr Boylan, or for any doctor, to predict with certainty the clinical course and outcome in the case of Savita Halappanavar where sepsis arose from the virulent and multi drug-resistant organism, E.coli ESBL. What we can say with certainty is that where ruptured membranes are accompanied by any clinical or bio-chemical marker of infection, Irish obstetricians understand they CAN intervene with early delivery of the baby if necessary. Unfortunately, the inquest shows that in Galway University Hospital the diagnosis of chorioamnionitis was delayed and relevant information was not noted and acted upon. The facts as produced at the inquest show this tragic case to be primarily about the management of sepsis, and Dr Boylan’s opinion on the effect of Irish law did not appear to be shared by the coroner, or the jury, of the inquest. Additionally there are many well-documented fatalities from sepsis in women following termination of pregnancy. To concentrate on the legal position regarding abortion in the light of such a case as that in Galway does not assist our services to pregnant women. It is clear that maternal mortality in developed countries is rising, in the US, Canada, Britain, Denmark, Netherlands and other European countries. The last Confidential Enquiry in Britain (which now includes Ireland) recommended a “return to basics” and stated that many maternal deaths are related to failure to observe simple clinical signs such as fever, headache and changes in pulse rate and blood pressure. Many of the failings highlighted in Galway have been described before in these and other reports. The additional problem of multi-resistant organisms causing infection, largely as a result of antibiotic use and abuse, is a serious cause of concern and may lead to higher death rates in all areas of medicine. Ireland’s maternal health record is one of the best in the world in terms of our low rate of maternal death (including Galway hospital). The case in Galway was one of the worst cases of sepsis ever experienced in that hospital, and the diagnosis of ESBL septicaemia was almost unprecedented among Irish maternity units. It is important that all obstetrical units in Ireland reflect on the findings of the events in Galway and learn how to improve care for pregnant women. To reduce it to a polemical argument about abortion may lead to more – not fewer – deaths in the future. – Yours sincerely, Dr. John Monaghan, DCH FRCPI FRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist Dr. Cyril Thornton, MB BCh MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist Dr. Eamon Mc Guinness, MB BCh MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist Dr. Trevor Hayes, MB BCh FRCS MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist Dr. Chris King, MB DCH MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist Dr. Eileen Reilly, MB ChB MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist Prof John Bonnar, MD FRCPI FRCOG Professor Emeritus Obstetrics & Gynaecology Prof Eamon O’Dwyer, MB MAO LLB FRCPI FRCOG Professor Emeritus Obstetrics & Gynaecology Prof Stephen Cusack, MB BCh FRCSI Consultant in Emergency Medicine Dr. Rory Page, MB BCh FFA RCSI Consultant Anaesthetist Dr. James Clair, MB BCh PhD FRCPath Consultant Microbiologist
NuMarvel wrote: » The statistics show that Irish women have abortions.
If you want to interpret that as being the successful implementation of a law that's supposed to stop Irish women having abortions, be my guest.
Sin City wrote: » Yeah but the "crime" is still being commtted just not in an Irish Jurisdiction Thats just passing the buck
Its not gonna stop whats actually happening Women are going to flee the country to have medical procedures that is outlawed here
Criminalizing this isnt and has never stopped abortions being sought and obtained it just makes it that bit harder.
People do suffer mentally physically and emotionally for it
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/80e9a6343fda9bcab0fa728a3336d1dc.svg)
