Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

ABC101 · 12-02-2018 12:28PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species. A living being’s designation to a species is determined not by the stage of development but by the sum total of its biological characteristics

....... · 12-02-2018 12:29PM

This post has been deleted.

ABC101 · 12-02-2018 12:30PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No it is Whiteroses who is stating a large number of women....and provided zero evidence for her claim.

....... · 12-02-2018 12:30PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 12-02-2018 12:33PM

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue · 12-02-2018 12:36PM

ABC101 wrote: »

The definition of countless is a number too many to be counted. Look it up yourself because you are obviously not going to take my word for it.

So yes you were right and I was wrong.... Whiteroses was expressing a figure greater than a thousand.

We cannot ever know the real number of women who lost their lives because the data isn't recorded properly. I provided 3 names to you, that's 3 too many.

The living, breathing, sentient women who carried those 3.5k fetuses are more important and their rights and needs and wants should be upheld. I think we need to look after the citizens we actually do have without worrying about the potential ones.

volchitsa · 12-02-2018 02:54PM

ABC101 wrote: »

So what about the 3,500 or so women who travel to the UK for an abortion. (This number is from what I have heard on the radio, numbers released by the UK medical service apparently).

How can it be justified for 3500 human lives to be extinguished (in agony) because of the 2 or 3 women who die (per year?) due to medical misadventure in Ireland?

So are you campaigning to get rid of the 13th amendment here, or are you saying that 3,500 is ok and 3 deaths of women is a fair enough price to pay?

Because that is the status quo, which is what you were defending, I thought.

Nick Park · 12-02-2018 04:06PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Countless women. Off the top of my head there was Marek Thawley, Savita Halappanavar, Sheila Rodgers.
Even one woman is too many.

How on earth is the 8th Amendment responsible for the death of Malak Thawley?

She died through medical failings by a hospital during an operation to terminate an ectopic pregnancy in the early stages of pregnancy.

As for Sheila Hodgers, she died before the 1983 Referendum, so I'm not quite sure how a law that didn't yet exist could be responsible for her death.

SusieBlue · 12-02-2018 04:09PM

Nick Park wrote: »

How on earth is the 8th Amendment responsible for the death of Malak Thawley?

She died through medical failings by a hospital during an operation to terminate an ectopic pregnancy in the early stages of pregnancy.

She would never have needed the surgery which took her life if Methotrexate was offered to her.

....... · 12-02-2018 04:09PM

This post has been deleted.

Nick Park · 12-02-2018 04:14PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

She would never have needed the surgery which took her life if Methotrexate was offered to her.

Nothing to do with the 8th Amendment. Both surgery or methotrexate would end the life of a seven week old unborn child. Both would be perfectly legal.

Nick Park · 12-02-2018 04:19PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That depends on how you define 'satisfactorily'. Best medical practice in regimes where abortion is legal (eg US or UK) is that surgery should be carried out when a heartbeat is present in an ectopic pregnancy:

69 Offer systemic methotrexate† as a first-line treatment to women who are able to return for follow-up and who have all of the following:
no significant pain
an unruptured ectopic pregnancy with an adnexal mass smaller than 35 mm with no visible heartbeat
a serum hCG level less than 1500 IU/litre
no intrauterine pregnancy (as confirmed on an ultrasound scan).
Offer surgery where treatment with methotrexate is not acceptable to the woman.
70 Offer surgery as a first-line treatment to women who are unable to return for follow-up after methotrexate treatment or who have any of the following:
an ectopic pregnancy and significant pain
an ectopic pregnancy with an adnexal mass of 35 mm or larger
an ectopic pregnancy with a fetal heartbeat visible on an ultrasound scan
an ectopic pregnancy and a serum hCG level of 5000 IU/litre or more.

NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 154.
National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (UK).
London: RCOG; 2012 Dec.

Funny how if a pro-life poster here makes an error they re accused of lying, but pro-abortion posters can get away with posting untruths.

....... · 12-02-2018 04:25PM

This post has been deleted.

Nick Park · 12-02-2018 04:29PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed they didn't. But that didn't stop another poster from jumping to a false conclusion and falsely claiming it had something to do with the Eighth Amendment.

But newspaper articles are not the be all and end all. It isn't too hard to find out that surgery is recommended where a heartbeat is present during an ectopic pregnancy. After all, medical journals and textbooks are generally going to be more informed than the newspapers.

....... · 12-02-2018 04:37PM

This post has been deleted.

Nick Park · 12-02-2018 04:49PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And she was advised that could not be done because the pregnancy had developed to the point where a heartbeat was detected, which is when surgery is recommended as best medical practice.

Again, nothing to do with the 8th. How could it be? The 8th Amendment does not impact on whether an ectopic pregnancy is terminated by surgery or by medication. The 8th Amendment is about the right to life of an unborn child, not about the particular method of ending the life of the child in the case of an ectopic pregnancy where a mother's life is in danger and where it is medically impossible for the unborn child to survive.

Or are you trying to argue that the 8th Amendment somehow states that it's OK to terminate a pregnancy by surgery but not by medication?

....... · 12-02-2018 05:01PM

This post has been deleted.

Nick Park · 12-02-2018 05:17PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I've already provided you a link from a medical textbook.

Do you think doctors base their decisions on what they read in a newspaper, or on medical textbooks, journals and guidelines?

I disagree. I have met women who have told me that their consultant explicitly told them that their hands were tied by the 8th so they had to operate and remove part of fallopian tube as to use medical management was against 8th.

Now it's my turn to ask you for a link that quotes any consultant (a real link, as opposed to a third hand anecdotal report).

Yes. Because the purpose of the surgery is to remove a part of the fallopian tube and the fetus being destroyed is a side effect. The purpose of the medication is to stop the fetal heartbeat. This is exactly the problem with the 8th. Doctors afraid to make decisions in case they face 14 years in prison.

Sorry, you are wrong again. The operation on Malak Thawley was laparoscopic surgery. Do you know what that means? Laparoscopic surgery involves a very small cut, a tiny camera, and no damage to the fallopian tube.

What you are arguing here is medically impossible and manifestly untrue.

....... · 12-02-2018 05:26PM

This post has been deleted.

Nick Park · 12-02-2018 05:42PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The medical text book said that best medical practice is to resort to surgery in an ectopic pregnancy when a foetal heartbeat is present.

That is obviously relevant to this particular case, particularly since no reports of the case have given any other reason for the decision.

In the case of maternity care - on the law.

A law that does not mention whether an ectopic pregnancy should be ended by surgery or by medication. Therefore they make their decisions according to best medical practice, as outlined in medical textbooks, guidelines and journals.

Dont have one - thats why I specifically told you that posters here had given same story as I was told myself. I take it at face value. Ive no reason not to believe it.

Right. No link. No verifiable source. But you believe it. Just like you believe that Malak Hawley's death was caused by the 8th Amendment without having a single scrap of evidence to support such a claim.

The fallopian tube had ruptured in her case. But the poster here who was given surgery rather than medical management had part of her fallopian tube removed.

So you are arguing that Malak Hawley died because of the 8th Amendment, and you support that claim on the basis of 'a poster here' who had a different kind of surgery from that of Malak? Do you realise how bizarre this is sounding?

Its medically impossible that doctors are afraid to make decisions because of the 8th?

It's medically impossible that doctors carried out laparoscopic surgery (a technique designed to avoid damage to then fallopian tube) on the grounds that the Eighth Amendment only permitted them to do a surgery that would involve the removal of part of the tube.

You are piling untruth upon untruth. And your refusal to back down does your argument no good whatsoever.

....... · 12-02-2018 06:03PM

This post has been deleted.

Nick Park · 12-02-2018 06:18PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

'It could have been' in the same way that aliens could have been responsible.

As you have admitted, you don't know that the 8th Amendment was a 'factor in' (the original claim was that it 'was responsible for') Malak Thawley's death. You, or any other poster, cannot produce a single shred of evidence to say that it caused her death.

To claim on one occasion that the 8th Amendment was responsible for Malak's Thawley's death (as Whiteroses did) was an unfortunate error that can be ascribed to ignorance of the facts.

To keep defending such a claim, even without any supporting evidence and in the teeth of clear evidence to the contrary, is dishonest. It is also a cruel and wrongful exploitation of a poor woman's tragic death for political gain.

....... · 12-02-2018 06:23PM

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue · 12-02-2018 06:30PM

Nick Park wrote: »

'It could have been' in the same way that aliens could have been responsible.

As you have admitted, you don't know that the 8th Amendment was a 'factor in' (the original claim was that it 'was responsible for') Malak Thawley's death. You, or any other poster, cannot produce a single shred of evidence to say that it caused her death.

To claim on one occasion that the 8th Amendment was responsible for Malak's Thawley's death (as Whiteroses did) was an unfortunate error that can be ascribed to ignorance of the facts.

To keep defending such a claim, even without any supporting evidence and in the teeth of clear evidence to the contrary, is dishonest. It is also a cruel and wrongful exploitation of a poor woman's tragic death for political gain.

I don't think we can categorically say that the 8th wasn't responsible when we know for a fact that medical professionals hands are tied when it comes to ectopic pregnancies.
I know you will sneer at and dismiss any anecdotal evidence, but I know of 3 women who asked for methotrexate who were told they could not have it as the legality of prescribing it was a legal grey area and the doctors were unwilling to take the chance.
While we cannot at this moment say that the 8th specifically caused her death, we can say that it impacted her maternity care.
There are no circumstances where a surgery is preferable to medically managing an issue such as this one.
If she had taken that tablet instead of having the surgery she might still be alive today.

....... · 12-02-2018 06:33PM

This post has been deleted.

Nick Park · 12-02-2018 06:45PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You think an opinionated assertion by the Repeal the Eighth campaign constitutes evidence - even though their opinion has not been backed by any evidence, even though all the reports blame her Malak Hawley's death on a botched operation? You've been going on about what the newspapers said about this case. How come you can't find a reputable media outlet (rather than a partisan political campaign website) that reported that Malak's death was caused by the 8th Amendment?

If she had been in the UK or the US, where there is no 8th Amendment, surgery would still be recommended in an ectopic pregnancy where there is a foetal heartbeat. Doctors will still push for the best medical practices to be followed, even when a patient or their family says, "But I want this treatment I read about on the internet ..."

Nick Park · 12-02-2018 06:56PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I don't think we can categorically say that the 8th wasn't responsible when we know for a fact that medical professionals hands are tied when it comes to ectopic pregnancies.
I know you will sneer at and dismiss any anecdotal evidence, but I know of 3 women who asked for methotrexate who were told they could not have it as the legality of prescribing it was a legal grey area and the doctors were unwilling to take the chance.
While we cannot at this moment say that the 8th specifically caused her death, we can say that it impacted her maternity care.
There are no circumstances where a surgery is preferable to medically managing an issue such as this one.
If she had taken that tablet instead of having the surgery she might still be alive today.

You named three women and claimed the 8th Amendment had caused their deaths. One of the names was Malak Hawley, but you can't provide any evidence that the 8th Amendment caused her death. Now you're back-pedalling to say that you can't categorically rule it out. You also accuse someone of sneering because they are asking for evidence rather than anecdotal accounts that may or may not be relevant.

Rather than keeping digging yourself deeper, let's move on to Sheila Hodgers. Sheila died in March 1983. The Referendum to introduce the 8th Amendment was in September 1983, and signed into law in October 1983.

How did the Eighth Amendment cause the death of Sheila Hodgers six months before it even existed?

SusieBlue · 12-02-2018 07:17PM

Nick Park wrote: »

You named three women and claimed the 8th Amendment had caused their deaths. One of the names was Malak Hawley, but you can't provide any evidence that the 8th Amendment caused her death. Now you're back-pedalling to say that you can't categorically rule it out. You also accuse someone of sneering because they are asking for evidence rather than anecdotal accounts that may or may not be relevant.

Rather than keeping digging yourself deeper, let's move on to Sheila Hodgers. Sheila died in March 1983. The Referendum to introduce the 8th Amendment was in September 1983, and signed into law in October 1983.

How did the Eighth Amendment cause the death of Sheila Hodgers six months before it even existed?

For a start, lose the patronising tone.

For Sheila Rodgers, the campaign was well under way for the referendum of the 8th and her husband Brendan confirmed in 2012 that doctors withdrew Sheila’s cancer treatment due to concerns that the treatment might harm the fetus.

They asked for an abortion but were denied. Brendan confirmed in interviews that he feels that the political debate at the time impacted his wife’s care. He fully supports repealing the 8th.
I’m linking from my phone so I’m not sure if this will work, but here’s the full article. https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/abortion-amendment-has-been-disaster-and-must-go-1.557123?mode=amp

Whether Malek died because of the 8th will be a matter of medical opinion but it cannot be denied it impacted her maternity care.
Savitas story is one of the saddest I’ve ever heard.

Regardless of you trying to poke holes, even one woman dying is too many. The 8th causes nothing but misery and distress to women and the sooner it’s gone the better.

Nick Park · 12-02-2018 08:01PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

For a start, lose the patronising tone.

I would suggest you lose the ad hominem attacks. It would be better to address the posts rather than the perceived tone (particularly given the tone of many of the pro-abortion contributors to this thread).

For Sheila Rodgers, the campaign was well under way for the referendum of the 8th and her husband Brendan confirmed in 2012 that doctors withdrew Sheila’s cancer treatment due to concerns that the treatment might harm the fetus.

You cannot blame a death on a campaign for a law that had not been voted on. There will always be campaigns for one thing or another.

Sheila Hodgers death was cruel and unnecessary. It could, and should, have been averted by correct use of contraception. She was failed multiple times by a Catholic-run hospital.

But it is plainly ludicrous to claim that a non-existent law killed anyone.

Whether Malek died because of the 8th will be a matter of medical opinion but it cannot be denied it impacted her maternity care.

It is a matter of medical opinion that she died of medical misadventure, including a whole catalogue of failures in her care. But at no point have you produced any medical opinion that suggests the 8th Amendment impacted her maternity care.

None. Zilch. Nada.

Savitas story is one of the saddest I’ve ever heard.

Savita's story is indeed sad. And there is a case where there is medical opinion on both sides (some that the 8th Amendment contributed to her death, others that it did not).

The primary reasons for Savita's death, according to the Arulkumaran Report, were "inadequate assessment and monitoring; failure to offer all management options to a patient; and non adherence to clinical guidelines related to the prompt and effective management of sepsis". In other words, the Eighth Amendment (or a wrong interpretation of it) may have played a role, but can hardly be pinpointed as being the primary cause of her death.

Subsequent legislation has, we are told, ensured that this should not happen again. So, while Savita's death was needless and tragic, it hardly constitutes a reason to repeal the 8th.

Btw, I agree wholeheartedly that one death is one death too many. However, you made the initial claim that 'countless' women have lost their lives due to the Eighth Amendment. When pressed on that, 'countless' became 'three'. Upon further examination, these three amount to one case where the 8th may have been a contributory factor among others (Savita), one where only the most diehard zealot could see a connection if they steadfastly choose to ignore any evidence (Malak), and one that occurred before the Eighth Amendment even existed (Sheila Hodgers).

So, from your initial claim about 'countless' women dying because of the Eighth, we've back-pedalled so far that the back wheel of your bike must be in Australia by now! Even the evolution of an Irish politician's principles seems slow in comparison.

Due you appreciate why I, and others, might take future claims that you make in this forum with a pinch of salt?

SusieBlue · 12-02-2018 08:15PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I would suggest you lose the ad hominem attacks. It would be better to address the posts rather than the perceived tone (particularly given the tone of many of the pro-abortion contributors to this thread).

No one is pro abortion. We are pro choice.

You cannot blame a death on a campaign for a law that had not been voted on. There will always be campaigns for one thing or another.

Sheila Hodgers death was cruel and unnecessary. It could, and should, have been averted by correct use of contraception. She was failed multiple times by a Catholic-run hospital.

But it is plainly ludicrous to claim that a non-existent law killed anyone.

Her husband feels that the 8th implicated her maternity care. The doctors refused her treatment due to concerns it would hurt the baby. That is exactly what the 8th was brought in for - it may not have been in law yet but it was certainly in practice. What’s that saying, if it walks like and duck and talks like a duck???....

It is a matter of medical opinion that she died of medical misadventure, including a whole catalogue of failures in her care. But at no point have you produced any medical opinion that suggests the 8th Amendment impacted her maternity care.

None. Zilch. Nada.
Savita's story is indeed sad. And there is a case where there is medical opinion on both sides (some that the 8th Amendment contributed to her death, others that it did not).

The primary reasons for Savita's death, according to the Arulkumaran Report, were "inadequate assessment and monitoring; failure to offer all management options to a patient; and non adherence to clinical guidelines related to the prompt and effective management of sepsis". In other words, the Eighth Amendment (or a wrong interpretation of it) may have played a role, but can hardly be pinpointed as being the primary cause of her death.

Subsequent legislation has, we are told, ensured that this should not happen again. So, while Savita's death was needless and tragic, it hardly constitutes a reason to repeal the 8th.

Btw, I agree wholeheartedly that one death is one death too many. However, you made the initial claim that 'countless' women have lost their lives due to the Eighth Amendment. When pressed on that, 'countless' became 'three'. Upon further examination, these three amount to one case where the 8th may have been a contributory factor among others (Savita), one where only the most diehard zealot could see a connection if they steadfastly choose to ignore any evidence (Malak), and one that occurred before the Eighth Amendment even existed (Sheila Hodgers).

So, from your initial claim about 'countless' women dying because of the Eighth, we've back-pedalled so far that the back wheel of your bike must be in Australia by now! Even the evolution of an Irish politician's principles seems slow in comparison.

Due you appreciate why I, and others, might take future claims that you make in this forum with a pinch of salt?

I’m not even going to bother addressing the rest of your post, as has previously been stated there is no proper data to record the amount of maternity deaths linked to the 8th. We have no idea how many deaths have occurred.
They are countless, numerous, but an uncertain amount.
I personally know of 3 people who had tubes removed, 2 who received episiotomies they did not consent to and many others whose maternity care was compisinised because of the 8th.
Women receiving comprised care is not good enough.
One death is too many.

I don’t care if you dismiss what I’m saying because even if the 8th didn’t directly cause their deaths, it was certainly linked to them.

I fail to see how you don’t see the connection between Maleks death and the 8th when even her husband has stated he feels it had impact on her care and subsequent death, but if you disagree, that’s your own business.

I couldn’t care less whether you take my posts with a pinch of salt or not, as I’ve already said I’m 100% confident in my position and nothing will change my mind.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments