Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Overheal · 12-05-2018 11:50PM

Cant you spot the difference?

palm-springs-hospital-exam-room150_2-18.jpg?w=960&h=460&crop=0,0,270,0

Overheal · 12-05-2018 11:54PM

can you spot the difference?

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRw31yhC5GPqiXwfVWWrUXgY66e9fMFwUN0xcg4lyErK2wxD4B9

Overheal · 12-05-2018 11:58PM

can you spot the difference?

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQnK2x7qbh_0GX1n9Rat_fXLCc__IlWkAo09QydJiu6Pgf2cDnw

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQcOXSSde1pSwMzTMXspRt_dnbqQz-HW6CeRCtSiK1POiggvFYB7w

Overheal · 13-05-2018 12:00AM

can you spot the difference? This one is a little tricky!

Overheal · 13-05-2018 12:07AM

bonus round! Most pro-birthers can spot the difference. Are you one of them?

Turtwig · 13-05-2018 12:37AM

Mod:

Ok enough.
It's possible to make to an argument for or against something without constant harking back to the Naziis. I get it that with ethical discussions the depravity of morality requires base lines and the holocaust is a convenient reference point. Really though the tone that's been adapted here has been anything but constructive. For this reason, any references to naziis better have a sublime philosophical thesis validating it or the mods will remove it - and they might just remove it anyway. Offenders may be subject to further mod action. So, please, for everyone's sake don't mention the war.
Thank you.

Overheal · 13-05-2018 01:35AM

My sincere apologies to the moderators and readership here; moderating Holocaust denial over the past week and a half has kept the events raw in memory and I believe that has been exploited. Very happy to move forward without such events being exploited for political hyperbole.

Antiskeptic, your promised response is still forthcoming.

antiskeptic · 13-05-2018 01:00PM

Overheal wrote: »

Antiskeptic, your promised response is still forthcoming.

I can read this two ways.

Your response to me is forthcoming
You await my response to you.

I'm happy to use the word "genocide" in future, if that's acceptable.

Overheal · 13-05-2018 06:36PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I can read this two ways.

Your response to me is forthcoming
You await my response to you.

I'm happy to use the word "genocide" in future, if that's acceptable.

No, not if you want me to resume taking you seriously as anything other than an abject troll. Because again you’re co-opting tragedies for something that is not genocide. The Holocaust, Rwanda, Cambodia, Armenia, Bosnia, Myanmar, Sudan, etc are all genocides. Genocides are the deliberate killings of large groups based on nationality, ethnicity, religion, or some other common marker, almost always carried out by some other large group (a nation, an army, a political party, a terror group etc) en masse. Abortion is an act carried out on a case by case basis, by individuals, upon themselves (ie. Their own bodies) for reasons that are not because of their or the unborns nationality, ethnicity, religion, or some other common marker. If you can’t understand this distinction, or show these tragedies their due respect and distinction, then I see no need to continue entertaining you. I will not allow the term to be watered down to something it is not so the uneducated and the irreverent can score cheap political theater points.

antiskeptic · 13-05-2018 07:15PM

The common marker is that it is unwanted. That's the reason. It is to be state sponsored.

The only reason you consider it otherwise is because you ( and the sponsoring state) don't see life in the womb as fully human.

That's your perogative. It neednt be mine.

What do you describe, for example, the widespread killing of female babies in India prior to the advent of ultrasound scanning (after which their abortion)?. They weren't wanted either.

Overheal · 13-05-2018 08:19PM

Yep I’m done speaking with you if you’re still equivocating genocide and abortion. Good luck to you.

volchitsa · 14-05-2018 05:49AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Article 48.3 states: “Abortion is legally permissible where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman which cannot be prevented by other means. This risk, while substantial, may not be immediate or inevitable in all cases.”

Could any YES-sir please attempt to reconcile the above with the YES-promoted notion that a women need to be in some kind of clear and present danger before a termination to save her life be carried out? That the doctors hands are tied, by the 8th, whilst she's knocking around on death's door?

sub·stan·tial
/səbˈstan (t)SHəl/

Maybe instead of all thr quoting of dictionaries, you would have done better to have checked the wording of article 40.3.3, which is the relevant article, because that is not what it says.

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

And it is interesting that another prolifer liked your post. Do none of you know what the constitution says, or are you just all grand with lies?

And the idea that doctors should operate outside the law is an interesting one.

antiskeptic · 14-05-2018 09:57AM

volchitsa wrote: »

Maybe instead of all thr quoting of dictionaries, you would have done better to have checked the wording of article 40.3.3, which is the relevant article, because that is not what it says.

And it is interesting that another prolifer liked your post. Do none of you know what the constitution says, or are you just all grand with lies?

And the idea that doctors should operate outside the law is an interesting one.

My sincere apologies: I jumped the gun having see 4 and decimal points.

The reference is actually the Medical Council guidelines. 48.3: “Abortion is legally permissible where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman which cannot be prevented by other means. This risk, while substantial, may not be immediate or inevitable in all cases.”

Now, these guidelines are the current guidelines and were, I gather updated following the The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013.

We can see that:

a) In so far as the 8th can be in any way associated with the treatment of Savita Halappanavar, it's association would be clearly removed had these guidelines been been 1) in place 2) adhered to.

b) The provision of such guidelines was brought about by legislation, rather than constitutional, change. In other words, they could have been in position before Savita's case.

volchitsa · 14-05-2018 11:09AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

My sincere apologies: I jumped the gun having see 4 and decimal points.

The reference is actually the Medical Council guidelines. 48.3: “Abortion is legally permissible where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman which cannot be prevented by other means. This risk, while substantial, may not be immediate or inevitable in all cases.”

Now, these guidelines are the current guidelines and were, I gather updated following the The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013.

We can see that:

a) In so far as the 8th can be in any way associated with the treatment of Savita Halappanavar, it's association would be clearly removed had these guidelines been been 1) in place 2) adhered to.

b) The provision of such guidelines was brought about by legislation, rather than constitutional, change. In other words, they could have been in position before Savita's case.

You realize that guidelines, and even law for that matter, cannot take priority over the constitution, right?

So no matter what you think the guidelines allow, the fact is that the constitution says that the two lives have equal priority.

The test of "real and substantial" is a much stricter test than doctors would normally apply before intervening to help someone.

That is why the doctor in Galway was waiting for a 51% risk of death.
How real and substantial was the risk before she reached that 51%? IOW, when could Dr Astbury have legally terminated the pregnancy in your view?
On admission? Monday? Tuesday morning?

Or do you think that the current guidelines allow all women with prolonged miscarriages to have surgical terminations in the absence of diagnosed chorioamnionitis?

Because that still isn't current practice in Ireland, so either they aren't obeying the guidelines, or you don't have sufficient medical training to know how those guidelines apply in practice.

I'm guessing it's the latter.

And you didn't comment further on your notion that doctors should be expected to operate outside the law to save their patients. Should they also steal a kidney from someone to save their patient? You implied it was acceptable to save someone's life.

antiskeptic · 14-05-2018 11:31AM

volchitsa wrote: »

You realize that guidelines, and even law for that matter, cannot take priority over the constitution, right?

Sequence:

Constitution

Legal interpretation of the Constitution from whence, Law

Guidelines (presumably legally informed) to interpret the Law

A doctor is guided by the guidelines, the guidelines guided by the Law, the Law guided by the Constitution.

The test of "real and substantial" is a much stricter test than doctors would normally apply before intervening to help someone.

That is why the doctor in Galway was waiting for a 51% risk of death.
How real and substantial was the risk before she reached that 51%? IOW, when could Dr Astbury have legally terminated the pregnancy in your view?
On admission? Monday? Tuesday morning?

The guidelines - which don't indicate anyone having to wait until a 51% risk of death, are current, post-Savita guidelines. They could have been there for Savita - given the State has had since 1983 to interrogate the Constitution and come up with law > guidelines.

Or do you think that the current guidelines allow all women with prolonged miscarriages to have surgical terminations in the absence of diagnosed chorioamnionitis?

Because that still isn't current practice in Ireland, so either they aren't obeying the guidelines, or you don't have sufficient medical training to know how those guidelines apply in practice.

I'm guessing it's the latter.

I'm not in a position to comment medically. What I do take from the guidelines is that no woman need be put in a place of actual danger. The medics are permitted to act in the event they consider there's a risk: imminent or reasonably (given precedence, clinical best practice, etc) foreseeable.

In plain speak: "this medical situation has been seen to develop into danger territory despite our medical interventions"

You have at that point, a mother not currently in danger but who could enter danger. You have substantial risk (given things can develop into danger). She is not in immediate danger. And it is not inevitable that she will enter danger

And you didn't comment further on your notion that doctors should be expected to operate outside the law to save their patients. Should they also steal a kidney from someone to save their patient? You implied it was acceptable to save someone's life.

I don't expect doctors to operate outside the law. The example I was giving of myself was my reading of the guidelines. Trusting the guidelines of my governing council are legally informed.

antiskeptic · 14-05-2018 11:39AM

Mr. Harris wrote:

Mr Harris said the facts do not bear that out and the posters do not account for the fact that terminations on basis of a disability is not permitted.

Mr Varadkar wrote:

“What [the committee] are saying is that we should have a new law. What’s at the heart of that new law is the view that we should trust women and trust doctors, trust women in the early weeks of a pregnancy, the first 12 weeks, to decide for themselves if they want to continue with that pregnancy.

Am I in a parallel universe? Terminations can be carried out for any reason up to 12 weeks on the say so of the woman, but they can't be carried out for disability?

volchitsa · 14-05-2018 12:05PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sequence:

Constitution

Legal interpretation of the Constitution from whence, Law

Guidelines (presumably legally informed) to interpret the Law

A doctor is guided by the guidelines, the guidelines guided by the Law, the Law guided by the Constitution.

The guidelines - which don't indicate anyone having to wait until a 51% risk of death, are current, post-Savita guidelines. They could have been there for Savita - given the State has had since 1983 to interrogate the Constitution and come up with law > guidelines.

Remind us who was most against any need for legislation at all, who claimed that the constitution was enough and that anything else was just watering down what the constitution said? Yes, that's right, the prolife side. Right up to 2013 they were still against bringing in legislation, slippery slope and all that.

And here you are claiming that the legislation actually does water down the constitution. But it doesn't, it can't. And the guidelines can't go further than the legislation.

It's been pointed out that another woman could be in the same position tomorrow morning as Savita was, and the guidelines don't actually help very much.

I'm not in a position to comment medically. What I do take from the guidelines is that no woman need be put in a place of actual danger. The medics are permitted to act in the event they consider there's a risk: imminent or reasonably (given precedence, clinical best practice, etc) foreseeable.

In plain speak: "this medical situation has been seen to develop into danger territory despite our medical interventions"

You have at that point, a mother not currently in danger but who could enter danger. You have substantial risk (given things can develop into danger). She is not in immediate danger. And it is not inevitable that she will enter danger

How many pregnancies have you had? All sorts of things can develop into medical emergencies, so your definition is abortion on demand for gestational diabetes or high blood pressure or even a kidney infection. And you may remember from the swine flu epidemic that minor illnesses for non pregnant adults can become life threatening in pregnancy. You get flu, you're offered an abortion?

And do you remember the young woman who died of a brain cyst in Westmeath? One of the complaints lodged by her family against the hospital is that she attended several times for headaches, and was refused a scan because of the risk to the baby. Should they scan all pregnant women who have persistent headaches? Do you know how dangerous a scan is for a fetus? So she wasn't dying - except she was.

Do we continue this pretence that doctors can know everything including how close someone is to dying, or do we introduce abortion on demand for any minor ailment that can potentially become fatal in pregnancy?

I don't expect doctors to operate outside the law. The example I was giving of myself was my reading of the guidelines. Trusting the guidelines of my governing council are legally informed.

I was referring to the first list I replied to in this series, about expecting doctors to save someone's life regardless of the law.

That was you, wasn't it?
Edit: yes it was indeed, here it is:

Maybe it's just me, but if I was a doctor, and held the professional opinion that a woman's life was at genuine risk then I'd terminate in a heartbeat. The legal ramifications wouldn't even occur to me.

antiskeptic · 14-05-2018 12:40PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Remind us who was most against any need for legislation at all, who claimed that the constitution was enough and that anything else was just watering down what the constitution said? Yes, that's right, the prolife side. Right up to 2013 they were still against bringing in legislation, slippery slope and all that.

Slippery slope it has turned out, wouldn't you agree? We're about to enable abortion on demand.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand

And here you are claiming that the legislation actually does water down the constitution. But it doesn't, it can't. And the guidelines can't go further than the legislation.

I'm afraid I have to take what the guidelines say rather than what you say. The guidelines say what is legally permissible. And I have to suppose that what is legally permissible is constitutionally permissible.

It's been pointed out that another woman could be in the same position tomorrow morning as Savita was, and the guidelines don't actually help very much.

The formal investigation cites medical mess up / system failures as primal cause in Savita's death. The 8th isn't actually directly implicated (the report suggests clarity is needed around the legal issue of abortion)

If medics won't follow guidelines then so be it. They would certainly help if they were followed.

How many pregnancies have you had? All sorts of things can develop into medical emergencies, so your definition is abortion on demand for gestational diabetes or high blood pressure or even a kidney infection. And you may remember from the swine flu epidemic that minor illnesses for non pregnant adults can become life threatening in pregnancy. You get flu, you're offered an abortion?

I'll leave it to the medics to decide what's a real and substantial risk. I presume they know what is and isn't. The fact it doesn't have to be immediate or inevitable risk gives ample room such that no one need die because medics suppose their hands tied.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. It seems that because anything can develop into a life-threatening situation, we should abort at first sign of a cold?

And do you remember the young woman who died of a brain cyst in Westmeath? One of the complaints lodged by her family against the hospital is that she attended several times for headaches, and was refused a scan because of the risk to the baby. Should they scan all pregnant women who have persistent headaches? Do you know how dangerous a scan is for a fetus? So she wasn't dying - except she was.

Do we continue this pretence that doctors can know everything including how close someone is to dying, or do we introduce abortion on demand for any minor ailment that can potentially become fatal in pregnancy?

You tell me. It seems that we either rely on doctors best efforts (which includes latitude wrt immediacy and inevitability) or we suggest abortions to every pregnant woman who walks in with a sniffle?

Which are you suggesting?

I was referring to the first list I replied to in this series, about expecting doctors to save someone's life regardless of the law.

That was you, wasn't it?
Edit: yes it was indeed, here it is:

The context was the guidelines (or constitution as I erroneously saw it) as they are. I personally wouldn't feel I have to hang around for more clarity - there is ample clarity in there for me to act. Others might be more reticent. I wouldn't myself feel that I would be in legal trouble terminating in such a situation. Nor am I suggesting that others ought to act outside the law.

volchitsa · 14-05-2018 01:07PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Slippery slope it has turned out, wouldn't you agree? We're about to enable abortion on demand.

That's a tad dishonest there, you know well that the claim was not that once we legislated we would then have to have a referendum, it was that any legislation would be used to allow abortion for wider reasons than had been intended.

That hasn't happened, in fact it's because the POLDPA hasn't prevented horrible situations like the young woman whose dead body was left to rot on a life support machine that we are already revisiting it.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand

I'm afraid I have to take what the guidelines say rather than what you say. The guidelines say what is legally permissible. And I have to suppose that what is legally permissible is constitutionally permissible.

The draft guidelines explicitly said that a Caesarean section would not come under the POLDPA.

After the MS Y debacle, the revised draft guidelines added that a c section could be included.

That's a very radical rewriting of guidelines, and something went seriously wrong there either before or after. Both cannot be right. So I'm afraid your confidence is misplaced.

The formal investigation cites medical mess up / system failures as primal cause in Savita's death. The 8th isn't actually directly implicated (the report suggests clarity is needed around the legal issue of abortion)

The report says that constitutional change may be necessary.
The author of the report has since expressed his surprise that this has not already been done. And has explicitly said that he believes the 8th was directly responsible.

If medics won't follow guidelines then so be it. They would certainly help if they were followed.

Who has said they don't? I'm suggesting that the evidence shows that the guidelines are not sufficient to prevent harm being done to women, and in some cases possibly not even enough to stop wome from dying.

I'll leave it to the medics to decide what's a real and substantial risk. I presume they know what is and isn't. The fact it doesn't have to be immediate or inevitable risk gives ample room such that no one need die because medics suppose their hands tied.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting. It seems that because anything can develop into a life-threatening situation, we should abort at first sign of a cold?

That's almost the logical conclusion of your words, not mine. Since you refuse to specify when a woman is at substantial but not immediate risk of death, and since many things can escalate in pregnancy in a way they don't in a non pregnant woman.

You tell me. It seems that we either rely on doctors best efforts (which includes latitude wrt immediacy and inevitability) or we suggest abortions to every pregnant woman who walks in with a sniffle?

Which are you suggesting?

Neither, I'm saying that in all other medical domains and also in obstetrics in other countries, doctors are not expected to wait until there is an identifiable risk of death before acting. That's because it's a dangerous approach, and especially in pregnancy.

And no, that doesn't mean that women will all abort the minute they get a touch of raised blood pressure - because most pregnant women want to be pregnant.

But the woman's health needs to be allowed to take priority if that is what she wants.

The context was the guidelines (or constitution as I erroneously saw it) as they are. I personally wouldn't feel I have to hang around for more clarity - there is ample clarity in there for me to act. Others might be more reticent. I wouldn't myself feel that I would be in legal trouble terminating in such a situation. Nor am I suggesting that others ought to act outside the law.

So I don't know what your point was. You'd be a better doctor because you'd act without thinking about the legal ramifications of your acts??

Macha · 14-05-2018 01:31PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Am I in a parallel universe? Terminations can be carried out for any reason up to 12 weeks on the say so of the woman, but they can't be carried out for disability?

You don't know before 12 weeks that your child will have a disability. Fatal foetal abnormalities are normally identified around the 20 week mark. My son was born with a congenital anomaly that was entirely missed in all 3 scans.

SusieBlue · 14-05-2018 01:44PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do I inquire further because it's not clear whether you're talking of a case of medical necessity. Or do I leave alone because of the sensitivity of your case.

You say.

I took a few well earned days away from this thread, I was absolutely infuriated by your comments regarding my circumstances but am ready to discuss now.

I have high grade genotyping cell changes in my cervix. High grade means a severe strain of change, and genotyping means multiplying.
So the cells have changed a severe amount and are growing in number every day.
If these cells were to continue changing and multiplying at the rate they are at the moment, it will develop into cervical cancer.

I'm currently having laser treatment to try to stop this from happening.
Should I become pregnant, this treatment would stop. And I would be expected to wait until I am no longer pregnant (9 months) to continue treatment.
In 9 months I could have terminal cancer or be dead.

I'm 27, hoping to get engaged over the next year or so. No other living kids though I did have a stillborn daughter a couple of years ago.

The 8th says that the fetus has equal rights to me so should I become pregnant, all bets are off and I'm left to my own devices to wait it out, unless I travel to the UK for a termination.

Do you think this is medical best practice, do you think I should have a choice, and would you be happy for your wife to be treated the same way?

Macha · 14-05-2018 01:53PM

SusieBlue, I'm so sorry to hear about your stillborn daughter. That must have been so hard.

I had to have LLETZ treatment about 9 years ago. I now have annual smears. We are trying for another baby but if a smear comes back problematic at the same time as I find out I'm pregnant, I want to know the doctors will do everything to help me, especially as my son needs me because of his medical problems (and I need my own sanity - my mum died last year and I had a missed miscarriage to boot).

antiskeptic · 14-05-2018 02:35PM

volchitsa wrote: »

That's a tad dishonest there, you know well that the claim was not that once we legislated we would then have to have a referendum, it was that any legislation would be used to allow abortion for wider reasons than had been intended.

I'm not sure what you mean. The 2013 Act, for example, interpreted the constitution. In doing so, it remained within what was intended.

From that, current medical council guidelines, are deemed legal. Unless the Medical Council are wrong, or the 2013 Act is reckoned as unconstitutional?

That hasn't happened, in fact it's because the POLDPA hasn't prevented horrible situations like the young woman whose dead body was left to rot on a life support machine that we are already revisiting it.

Are you suggesting that legislation cannot be enacted to deal with a range of cases. In advance of those cases, rather than after the fact?

The draft guidelines explicitly said that a Caesarean section would not come under the POLDPA.

After the MS Y debacle, the revised draft guidelines added that a c section could be included.

That's a very radical rewriting of guidelines, and something went seriously wrong there either before or after. Both cannot be right. So I'm afraid your confidence is misplaced.

My confidence is that a) the medical council guidelines are legally sound b) that they, in their current form, ensure a woman need no be in danger before a decision is made to terminate.

You seem to be conflating the skill and foresight with which guidelines regarding the 8th are drawn up with the 8th itself. They are two different things.

The report says that constitutional change may be necessary.

Indeed. And it points very clearly to where the central problem lay. It prioritises that central problem by placing it first on the list.

Given that legislational change resulted in guidelines that render it crystal clear that the 8th couldn't be implicated in a case like Savita, constitutional change isn't, it appears, necessary.

The author of the report has since expressed his surprise that this has not already been done. And has explicitly said that he believes the 8th was directly responsible.

The chair of the investigation is no longer acting under the auspices of the investigation. The fact his current opinion doesn't feature in the report is indicative that his view isn't the only view going into making up the report.

Who has said they don't?

The report indicates a host of systems failures and procedures not followed.

I'm suggesting that the evidence shows that the guidelines are not sufficient to prevent harm being done to women, and in some cases possibly not even enough to stop women from dying.

The guidelines are sufficient to prevent a present day Savita and a present day Michelle Harte. They might not be sufficient to prevent death by common cold.

The point is that these guidelines didn't take constitutional amendment to bring about. It's reasonable to suppose that further guidelines, to deal with any number of foreseeable occurances, could be brought about without constitutional change.

That's almost the logical conclusion of your words, not mine. Since you refuse to specify when a woman is at substantial but not immediate risk of death, and since many things can escalate in pregnancy in a way they don't in a non pregnant woman.

Only a medic can strike that balance. The pregnant woman brought in with high blood pressure and unconscious following a car crash would have to have an abortion, because high blood pressure can turn fatal?

Or would the medic take a view based on sound clinical best practice? Monitor the situation and act accordingly?

Neither, I'm saying that in all other medical domains and also in obstetrics in other countries, doctors are not expected to wait until there is an identifiable risk of death before acting. That's because it's a dangerous approach, and especially in pregnancy.

Substantial means having some substance. It need not be immediate. It need not even come to anything. Substance means the medic is in control and can act at a medically appropriate threshold. They needn't take any risk with the life of the woman.

If they genuinely think a common cold is going to put her life at risk then they can act.

And no, that doesn't mean that women will all abort the minute they get a touch of raised blood pressure - because most pregnant women want to be pregnant.

But the woman's health needs to be allowed to take priority if that is what she wants.

I'm afraid it's not typically the case that patients get to decide which medical procedure they'd like to avail of. Doctors are the one's who do the proposing. The patient agrees.

As for health vs. life. It appears to me that life needn't be at all risked. I'm not sure what health reasons attach to a pregnancy but would disagree (for the bulk of cases) that a womans health (as opposed to life) ought be prioritized.

So I don't know what your point was. You'd be a better doctor because you'd act without thinking about the legal ramifications of your acts??

I merely to indicate that the current guidelines leave (not a doctor) me free to act without having to risk the life of the woman in any way (assuming I've got a higher threshold for risk than aborting at the sight of a common cold).

antiskeptic · 14-05-2018 02:58PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

I took a few well earned days away from this thread, I was absolutely infuriated by your comments regarding my circumstances but am ready to discuss now.

Okay. Thanks. I'll attempt to tone down that which might infuriate, but won't be ducking from what I see is the essence of things.

I have high grade genotyping cell changes in my cervix. High grade means a severe strain of change, and genotyping means multiplying.
So the cells have changed a severe amount and are growing in number every day.If these cells were to continue changing and multiplying at the rate they are at the moment, it will develop into cervical cancer.

Understood.

I'm currently having laser treatment to try to stop this from happening.
Should I become pregnant, this treatment would stop. And I would be expected to wait until I am no longer pregnant (9 months) to continue treatment.
In 9 months I could have terminal cancer or be dead.

I presume you have read above, the current medical council guidelines relating to abortion in the case of life-risking circumstances? The risk need to be substantial (in that it need to have substance to it - not some spurious thing), it need not be immediate, and it need not ever actually transpire .. in order that an abortion be permitted here.

If you fell pregnant and laser treatment had to be halted you would have, it would appear: substance behind the idea that there was risk to your life. It wouldn't have be an immediate risk. And the risk might not even transpire.

Ireland has demonstrated (by legislating after Savita unto clarity which may have helped Savita):

- it's ability to provide clarity such that a woman's life need not be in any way risked. Without that requiring an alteration of the Constitution

- it's inability to provide clarity before the event, preferring to wait until problems arise before clarifying the existing Constitution

If it were me (my wife rather), I wouldn't trust that Ireland wouldn't mess up. I don't think the Constitution would be the thing affecting my me. I think Ireland's way of doing things in our sloppy, messed up way is the thing which would affect me negatively. Therefore I would make sure my passport was in date and that there was money to travel. I would, in the event of continuing to have sex during this period, ensure everything was ready to go in the event I fell pregnant

I wouldn't look to provide abortion on demand, no-matter-for-what-reason, because of my own circumstances. It's not the 8th which is causing the problem, it's Ireland Inc. not dealing with things in a timely, effective manner.

I'm 27, hoping to get engaged over the next year or so. No other living kids though I did have a stillborn daughter a couple of years ago.

I'm sorry, truly. I've but one kid, the love of my life. I only fell in love with him the moment he was born, but if he had been still born, I'd have been crushed.

The 8th says that the fetus has equal rights to me so should I become pregnant, all bets are off and I'm left to my own devices to wait it out, unless I travel to the UK for a termination.

As you can see I don't agree that's the current situation legally/medically. But I wouldn't be taking chances. And wouldn't be looking to introduce abortion on demand to make up for the fact that Ireland ain't got it's act together yet.

....... · 14-05-2018 03:20PM

This post has been deleted.

Overheal · 14-05-2018 03:37PM

....... wrote: »

No. All women in Ireland should be afforded proper medical care in Ireland.

NIMBYism is not the answer here.

Especially if it was your wife you would eschew your “morals” and have your NIMBY-bag and papers ready to go

....... · 14-05-2018 03:53PM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 14-05-2018 04:07PM

....... wrote: »

No. All women in Ireland should be afforded proper medical care in Ireland.

NIMBYism is not the answer here.

I fall short of your 'all' I'm afraid. Or perhaps it's what you consider 'proper' I think improper.

antiskeptic · 14-05-2018 04:13PM

Overheal wrote: »

Especially if it was your wife you would eschew your “morals” and have your NIMBY-bag and papers ready to go

You don't seem to be following very well. I'm not against abortion no matter what.

Now that you're back.

Your value on life in the womb, no matter how careless the circumstances in which bodily autonomy was lost and no matter how selfish and puerile the motivation for wanting it restored, by means of an abortion.

Less than or more than that bodily autonomy?

Appledreams15 · 14-05-2018 04:17PM

J C wrote: »

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I know it's in a christian forum and most churches tend to have teachings on the morality or immorality of abortion, but I fundamentally believe opinions on the matter can and should remain outside the confines of the Bible and other religious texts.

The Bible is very clear that 'thou shall not kill' ... but so too is the law of every functioning state in the world.
Whether, you use the Bible or common sense, the moral imperative is to vindicte the right to life ... because no other right can be exercised in the absence of the right to life.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Opinions on the right to life are rooted in one's own moral code I think, and so I while I think discussion on the matter by churches is fine, I must say I really do hate it when they tell parishioners which way to vote (on any matter that is). It's a decision which should ultimately come down to the individual and what they think is right or wrong, acceptable or unacceptable in our society.

The right to life of others and oneself is normally accepted as an absolute non-negotiable right ... that can only be abrogated in very exceptional circumstances ... like self-defense or the defense of others, where no other option is available.
The days of Roman Catholic priests telling anyone what to do are long gone ... but this doesn't remove the moral responsibility from anybody, when they act on matters of life and death ... such as when they cast their vote in the upcoming abortion referendum.
Do we really want a society where the most dangerous place to be is in your mother's womb?

MightyMandarin wrote: »

FWIW I consider myself a christian and believe the right to life of the unborn should be enshrined in the constitution, but I really do find it irritating when people (including relatives of mine) go on about why abortion is wrong simply because the bible says so. There should be more substantive reasons behind that imo.

There are obvious substantive reasons why 'thou shall not kill' is a critical principle for society to live by ... other than the fact that it is the Sixth Commanment of God (although that in itself should be very important for any Christian).
The most obvious (and selfish reason) is that I could be the next victim, in a society that doesn't enforce and criminally sanction the principle of 'thou shall not kill'.
... and you or I might never have been born, if our societies didn't protect the right to life of unborn children, at the time.
... so why should we metaphorically 'lift the drawbrdge' behind us now? ... and leave future generations of children to 'run the gauntlet' of being aborted, in a society that legally allows unlimited abortion?

Doesn't the bible also say that gay people should not be together? How dod you come to accept living in a country where gay people can marry?

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments