Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

antiskeptic · 22-05-2018 09:06AM

Im on the phone so will condense a reply. You could review your post in light of it?

The question posed was what would occur under present law since that is established under the 8th.

You speak of the patient in the process of dying before action can be taken. The act says to a)prevent a b)risk of death coming about. That moves the goalpost back a step from your contention that the person need actually be dying (as my last post explains).

I understand what your saying about risk to health. It apparently moves the goalposts back. However:

a) the current act isnt prescriptive as to were the existing goalposts ought be set.

b) It follows that once permitted to prioritize the life of the mother over the baby you are permitted to set thresholds. Once deciding that drink driving involves risk of death and deciding to prevent that risk zone being entered you set about setting thresholds. Tight or loose depending on what you deem necessary to avoid the risk coming about. It need not be an 'immediate or inevitable risk' - you just know that drink driving puts people in that risk zone. And threshold until you achieve sn acceptable result.

c) thresholding will be necessary under the new law. Otherwise doctors would be able to abort due to the threat to the health of the mothers skin (by way of stretch marks). Your faced with lawsuits for damage to health for want of an abortion on any grounds unless you threshold 'serious' and 'prevent' entry to that risk zone

antiskeptic · 22-05-2018 09:13AM

Delirium wrote: »

seemingly a pro-life doctor today admitted the 8th was a factor in the death of Savita.

Anyone got any info on it?

Im not sure of the significance of this. Aside from the potential PR scoop

Delirium · 22-05-2018 09:47AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Im not sure of the significance of this. Aside from the potential PR scoop

Medical professionals on both side of the aisle agreeing the 8th played a part in the death of Savita.

Timberrrrrrrr · 22-05-2018 09:54AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Im not sure of the significance of this. Aside from the potential PR scoop

It certainly puts another dent in your continued insistence that the 8th played no part in her death.

....... · 22-05-2018 10:14AM

This post has been deleted.

Timberrrrrrrr · 22-05-2018 10:15AM

....... wrote: »

Dent? Another gaping hole in a net.

I'm sure he will copy/paste his usual response and keep the blinkers firmly in place.

antiskeptic · 22-05-2018 10:24AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It certainly puts another dent in your continued insistence that the 8th played no part in her death.

As you can see from the nature of the discussion, I'm less concerned about what people say than I am in the validity of what they say.

If you've something to say about the validity of what is said, then by all means.

antiskeptic · 22-05-2018 10:37AM

Delirium wrote: »

Medical professionals on both side of the aisle agreeing the 8th played a part in the death of Savita.

...makes for a great headline.

Timberrrrrrrr · 22-05-2018 10:55AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

As you can see from the nature of the discussion, I'm less concerned about what people say than I am in the validity of what they say.

If you've something to say about the validity of what is said, then by all means.

I do

You continually post lies as fact and when these lies of yours are shown for what they are you stick your fingers in your ears and scream LA LA LA LA LA before going to your usual copy/paste lie/response about how the 8th didn't have anything to do with the death of Savitta.

antiskeptic · 22-05-2018 10:59AM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I do

You continually post lies as fact and when these lies of yours are shown for what they are you stick your fingers in your ears and scream LA LA LA LA LA before going to your usual copy/paste lie/response about how the 8th didn't have anything to do with the death of Savitta.

Shown? I've been told the 8th has killed numerous times. I've been told the Professor blamed the 8th (when he didn't). I've been told the 8th killed Savita (when the official report into her death doesn't even hint at such a thing). I've asked whether Savita could happen under the current 8th Amendment-enabled law and ...silence

Indeed, your comment is pretty typical of the kind of "shown" I've seen around boards. Delirium is making a stab at it at the moment. But other than that?

....... · 22-05-2018 11:01AM

This post has been deleted.

Macha · 22-05-2018 11:02AM

Sorry, antiskeptic but Dr Trevor Hayes with Doctors for Life admitted on Morning Ireland this morning that Savita should have been given a termination when she requested it but she was refused. You can listen back if you wish.

I would laugh at your stubbornness except for the fact that as an Irish woman of child-bearing age, this is extremely serious and personal for me.

Timberrrrrrrr · 22-05-2018 11:02AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Shown? I've been told the 8th has killed numerous times. I've been told the Professor blamed the 8th (when he didn't). I've been told the 8th killed Savita (when the official report into her death doesn't even hint at such a thing). I've asked whether Savita could happen under the current 8th Amendment-enabled law and ...silence

Indeed, your comment is pretty typical of the kind of "shown" I've seen around boards. Delirium is making a stab at it at the moment. But other than that?

Many medical practitioners have said her death was a result if the 8th, you just ignore anything they have said and continue to copy/paste about the above bolded.

They do say ignorance is bliss though.

antiskeptic · 22-05-2018 11:37AM

Macha wrote: »

Sorry, antiskeptic but Dr Trevor Hayes with Doctors for Life admitted on Morning Ireland this morning that Savita should have been given a termination when she requested it but she was refused. You can listen back if you wish.

I did listen back. And I would urge anyone who believes for a moment that a doctor "on the No side" admits the 8th had a hand in Savita's death listen to it too.

He makes it plain that there is nothing in about the 8th that would cause him to hesitate for a moment, from entering in early in proceedings to "empty that uterus".

He is asked whether he thinks the law might have a "chilling effect" on some doctors, who might worry about being prosecuted for an illegal abortion.

I was fully convinced he was going to say "they ought grow a set".

By all means quotemine what he says in order to fit your bill. To do so in this case is beyond grasping at straws.

SusieBlue · 22-05-2018 11:40AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I did listen back. And I would urge anyone who believes for a moment that a doctor "on the No side" admits the 8th had a hand in Savita's death listen to it too.

He makes it plain that there is nothing in about the 8th that would cause him to hesitate for a moment, from entering in early in proceedings to "empty that uterus".

He is asked whether he thinks the law might have a "chilling effect" on some doctors, who might worry about being prosecuted for an illegal abortion.

I was fully convinced he was going to say "they ought grow a set".

By all means quotemine what he says in order to fit your bill. To do so in this case is beyond grasping at straws.

That's exactly what you're doing, and have continuously done, on every post you've made about that woman.

antiskeptic · 22-05-2018 11:41AM

Delirium wrote: »

Medical professionals on both side of the aisle agreeing the 8th played a part in the death of Savita.

Did you listen to the clip?

antiskeptic · 22-05-2018 11:47AM

Macha wrote: »

Sorry, antiskeptic but Dr Trevor Hayes with Doctors for Life admitted on Morning Ireland this morning that Savita should have been given a termination when she requested it but she was refused. You can listen back if you wish.

The doctor doesn't say she should have been given a termination when she requested it but she was refused. He doesn't even say words to that effect.

He says her condition was mis-managed and opportunities missed all along the way. That she went down the cascade from something the prof arul. calls manageable to something less manageable to something quite serious. Exactly as the reports say.

Sure. If it were him he would have terminated. Not because she requested it, but because he'd have figured it out for himself.

antiskeptic · 22-05-2018 12:03PM

What comes across from the clip is a man who is:

- passionately concerned for the woman's life and the life of the baby.
- won't countenance the loss of the women by dithering
- doesn't feel constrained by the 8th. Not even under the law of Savita's day.
- the notion of potential legal trouble doesn't even enter his head.

If Savita had him as a doctor, she'd be alive today.

If Savita had him and he's not in jail for illegal abortions, the something need be done about the doctors who fear legal action. Because there's a darn sight more places a doctor can face legal action for than just taking "a risk" in the event of an inevitable miscarriage.

A doctor who risks his patient because of his worries about legal action against him in the event he acts? Is that the kind of doctor you want? Or would you prefer Dr. Hayes

antiskeptic · 22-05-2018 12:17PM

Dr. Hayes says he would abort where the miscarriage was inevitable. He says's he would abort in the presence of a fetal heartbeat. He says he would intervene early on. He says he would't hesitate.

He does say, in response to the question whether the legal context was a contributing factor, that it was a lesser element.

Exactly like the HSE investigative report.

And he goes onto contextualize that: the doctor involved dithered. He wouldn't for a second.

Is the law to blame for one doctor dithering and the other not? Is the 8th to blame for the law then. Is the law now better?

Well done Dobbie btw. Good interview.

antiskeptic · 22-05-2018 12:25PM

Fascinating@ Dobbie says that the new legislation would allow for terminations along the lines of the 2013 Act. That there would be protections.

The very point was raised with you Delirium:

How do you prevent doctors being afraid of legal action under the new regime?

Because if they dither over the precise boundaries, on threat of being held to account for getting it wrong, then the patient suffers.

Just as Savita suffered. Because of dithering and confusion. Not because of the law which actually allows them to act. Proof: Dr Hayes!

Delirium · 22-05-2018 12:28PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fascinating@ Dobbie says that the new legislation would allow for terminations along the lines of the 2013 Act. That there would be protections.

The very point was raised with you Delirium:

How do you prevent doctors being afraid of legal action under the new regime?

Because if they dither over the precise boundaries, on threat of being held to account for getting it wrong, then the patient suffers.

Just as Savita suffered. Because of dithering and confusion. Not because of the law which actually allows them to act. Proof: Dr Hayes!

Of course, repeal is hardly go to rollback that.

However, there will be additional allowances such as rape, incest, FFA or risk to health.

The wider the scope for abortion, the less dithering that will occur because there are less scenarios for legal restriction.

antiskeptic · 22-05-2018 12:59PM

Delirium wrote: »

The wider the scope for abortion, the less dithering that will occur because there are less scenarios for legal restriction.

The proposed legislation doesn't alter the essential problem. You will have, at Savita's 17 weeks, the issue of "serious risk to health / risk of death"

You've still got the potential for Doctor A acting because he considers there to be a serious risk to health and Doctor B not acting because he isn't sure whether he's crossed the threshold for serious risk to health.

Rather than death, you're going to have cases of serious damage to health (and possible death)

-

The root of the problem lies in lack of clarity about / uniformity of action around .. the law. Not the law itself.

-

You don't think the problem lies in providing clear guidelines? How can one doctor act (and not be prosecuted for an illegal abortion) when you're dealing with something that is pretty routine in the field and whose pathway towards increasing risk is clearly known.

....... · 22-05-2018 01:42PM

This post has been deleted.

antiskeptic · 22-05-2018 02:11PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's a bleeding heart. Right there.

Graces7 · 22-05-2018 06:08PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

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.

I have family/ colleagues working to rescue abandoned babies in India and Nepal The men will not allow birth control or abortion lest they lose a precious boy. Many of these are born to women forced into prostitution who know that if they raise a girl that will be her fate at an early age.

Now we are seeing late term abortions due to scanning. One of my family saw a dr throwing a viable foetus int the rubbish and attacked him, The police arrested her then when she told/showed him, they released her and arrested the dr,

ffemale babies were not killed; they were dumped in buckets, ditches, rubbish heaps to die of exposure .... now they are prematurely aborted and dumped and we cannot save them.
And we have a room staffed 24/7 where a woman can leave her baby. no ??asked

We think of Ireland as superior to India, yet we are trying to stop what they are condemned for?

NB we raise all the babies we can; for too many it is hospice care. And they.are adopted within India

It can be done and is done. There is no human /humane need for abortion.

Overheal · 22-05-2018 06:14PM

Graces7 wrote: »

Many of these are born to women forced into prostitution who know that if they raise a girl that will be her fate at an early age.

There is no human /humane need for abortion.

??

antiskeptic · 22-05-2018 08:00PM

Overheal wrote: »

??

Methinks you miss the point with your contextual-deafness.

We should abort babies instead of tackling the ills of society? What kind of upside down world do you live in that you tackle the symptoms of the illness rather than the cause?

Your in the States right? Do you suppose they should abort kids born in poor neighbourhoods because they'll live a tough life?

Overheal · 23-05-2018 01:11AM

The guy who is context-deaf to differences between

The Holocaust
Genocides
Abortions

Lecturing someone else about context-deafness?

:pac: :P :eek: :rolleyes: :pac:

Thanks. I needed a laugh. Now, while it’s great you think we should “just simply” fix all of society’s woes (indeed, the rape and other problems in India say) doesn’t address the ones who fall in the middle - between the “cure” of society’s woes, and the illness. You would see a generation or two of girls born into being - I’ll pick a much nicer phrase - not much more than abused, meaty playthings their entire lives in India. Just for instance.

In the US, since you asked, were civilized enough that if a woman doesn’t want to birth a child into a life of poverty, she has the right not to. Hope that answers your question,

Delirium · 23-05-2018 07:26AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The proposed legislation doesn't alter the essential problem. You will have, at Savita's 17 weeks, the issue of "serious risk to health / risk of death"

You've still got the potential for Doctor A acting because he considers there to be a serious risk to health and Doctor B not acting because he isn't sure whether he's crossed the threshold for serious risk to health.

Rather than death, you're going to have cases of serious damage to health (and possible death)

-

The root of the problem lies in lack of clarity about / uniformity of action around .. the law. Not the law itself.

-

You don't think the problem lies in providing clear guidelines? How can one doctor act (and not be prosecuted for an illegal abortion) when you're dealing with something that is pretty routine in the field and whose pathway towards increasing risk is clearly known.

I'm not sure why you're struggling a simple conceit.

Currently, "risk to life" is the bar. This means a threat to life has to be established for doctors to act.

Additionally, it's retrospective in regards to whether a doctor was right to abort in any given situation. They perform the abortion and after that they will be reviewed to see if it actually met the criteria. All of which can have a chilling effect.

Allowing for "risk to health" means they can determine earlier that an abortion is allowed. It will also mean if "risk to life" is a concern then it's likely the doctors waited too long.

Can dithering happen? sure. But with a wider scope it means that the odds of the pregnant person dying are reduced.

antiskeptic · 23-05-2018 08:38AM

Delirium wrote: »

I'm not sure why you're struggling a simple conceit.

Currently, "risk to life" is the bar. This means a threat to life has to be established for doctors to act.

Additionally, it's retrospective in regards to whether a doctor was right to abort in any given situation. They perform the abortion and after that they will be reviewed to see if it actually met the criteria. All of which can have a chilling effect.

Allowing for "risk to health" means they can determine earlier that an abortion is allowed. It will also mean if "risk to life" is a concern then it's likely the doctors waited too long.

Can dithering happen? sure. But with a wider scope it means that the odds of the pregnant person dying are reduced.

Dying is but one very negative outcome. Being left in a permanently vegatative state, suffering widespread organ damage and congestive heart failure are undesirable too.

Such problems can be expected to occur in some cases and not others - due to lack of clarity as to what constitutes "serious risk to health" under the proposed legislation (or any legislation which doesn't put a specific value on things). Nothing changes in essence from the current situation.

One way to deal with this is to unify your approach so that your handling of a particular situation is standardized across the board. Do you think McDonald's let a situation arise that results in a markedly different Big Mac's being served in different restaurants?

If they were served differently and the manager of the offending restaurant says there was confusion as to how the burger ought to be made, do you first examine the guidelines and managers training? Or do you suppose that it's not possible to produce identical burgers and dump the whole concept. Even though many restaurants do manage to produce identical burgers and don't seem to have a problem interpreting the guidelines?

To blame the law because there is patent, but by no means universal confusion about its application, is to misdirect the focus. To look in the wrong place.

-

The other way to deal with it is to row back further and further with the definition of 'seriousness' such that confusion over guidelines never results in whatever level of serious ill health you decide you want to avoid. Lower the bar, in other words, so that you always get over it. Make it "risk of damage to health" instead of "serious risk of damage to health" for example.

Where does that end up?

1. Little motivation to develop and implement a drive towards uniformity of service.

2. A tendency for some doctors to seek safety, not only of the patient but of themselves. This shift will arise at the point of confusion - no matter where the threshold is set. It is fear (of legal action, disciplinary hearings) brought about by confusion that's the problem. Not where you set the threshold. Safety of self occurred with Savita afterall. You're just widening the range of cases where that will occur.

3. Ever relaxing grounds for abortion.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments