Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

amcalester wrote: »

You keep ignoring the fact that 2 doctors diagnosed a FFA and that is the reason this woman requested an abortion. That's pretty pertinent information.

Trying to twist this into simply a woman requesting an abortion after 12 weeks is very dishonest, and shows the usual lack of compassion we see from the anti-choice brigade.

The facts arent at all clear.

The news states that two consultants wanted to wait for a few weeks to determine whether the defect was fatal or not. Ethically and legally this is what they are obliged to do under the legisation permitting abortion in Ireland. They can only certify that a defect is fatal is in their opinion if it is beyond doubt and in this case in the experts opinion there was doubt.

What am I missing here, what is all the outrage about.

tretorn wrote: »

female hysterics
:rolleyes:
How do I put king gob on ignore, wont waste my mind with his nonsense.

Lol. Asking you to back up claims is nonsense.
Thank you for proving just how you guys think.

tretorn wrote: »

The facts arent at all clear.

The news states that two consultants wanted to wait for a few weeks to determine whether the defect was fatal or not. Ethically and legally this is what they are obliged to do under the legisation permitting abortion in Ireland. They can only certify that a defect is fatal is in their opinion if it is beyond doubt and in this case in the experts opinion there was doubt.

What am I missing here, what is all the outrage about.

can you point to the article that says that? Neither the independent or rte have said that.

tretorn wrote: »

The facts arent at all clear.

The news states that two consultants wanted to wait for a few weeks to determine whether the defect was fatal or not. Ethically and legally this is what they are obliged to do under the legisation permitting abortion in Ireland. They can only certify that a defect is fatal is in their opinion if it is beyond doubt and in this case in the experts opinion there was doubt.

What am I missing here, what is all the outrage about.

Link to the 2 consultants wanting to wait 4 weeks?

I've quoted the Independent above saying 2 consultants agreed she met the criteria for an abortion.

tretorn wrote: »

The facts arent at all clear.

The news states that two consultants wanted to wait for a few weeks to determine whether the defect was fatal or not. Ethically and legally this is what they are obliged to do under the legisation permitting abortion in Ireland. They can only certify that a defect is fatal is in their opinion if it is beyond doubt and in this case in the experts opinion there was doubt.

What am I missing here, what is all the outrage about.

Please refer us to your source of information?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

tretorn wrote: »

The facts arent at all clear.

The news states that two consultants wanted to wait for a few weeks to determine whether the defect was fatal or not. Ethically and legally this is what they are obliged to do under the legisation permitting abortion in Ireland. They can only certify that a defect is fatal is in their opinion if it is beyond doubt and in this case in the experts opinion there was doubt.

What am I missing here, what is all the outrage about.

Can you link the news article that says that the consultants advised waiting a few weeks please? Any I'm seeing say they confirmed an FFA and that a board in the hospital decided on the waiting period.

Also can you quote the relevant part of the constitution for your claim that foetuses of more than 12 weeks gestation have a constitutional right to life?

No wonder you don't get the outrage, you don't seem to understand many of the alleged facts of this case or many of the basic facts of the legality of abortion atm.

No, I cant point to the source.

To the best of my knowledge the consultants saw the foetus had an abnormality but they wanted to wait for a few weeks to ascertain whether it was fatal or not. I think it was Ruthless Coppinger who gave this information in the Dail, I think she also referred to the pregnant woman as having an FFA, surely she should have said she was carrying a foetus with an FFA, is the foetus due no respect at all.

The Board of the Coombe have said they had no input into clinical decisions.

This is as much information as we have now. I generally dont listen to anything Coppinger or Smyth have to say, I dont want them representing me and neither would most Irish people, hence their tiny, tiny proportion of support from the electorate.

The type of people who support them would be the sort that would support protests against Leo, I think about four people turned up at a protest outside the Dail the other day,it was too cold for the other wannabee supporters to get out of bed. If there were tickets for sale to a concert costing a hundred euros per ticket they would be at the keyboard bright and early with the credit card to hand to secure a ticket.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/woman-refused-abortion-will-travel-to-united-kingdom-1.3762063

robarmstrong

If you can't point to a source or provide a source, do not provide a claim, simple as.

tretorn wrote: »

No, I cant point to the source.

To the best of my knowledge the consultants saw the foetus had an abnormality but they wanted to wait for a few weeks to ascertain whether it was fatal or not.

The Board of the COOmbe have said they had no input into clinical decisions.

Your knowledge would appear to be based on nothing and incorrect then.

Thanks for your input, perhaps until you have educated yourself from the facts as they are presented in the media you could hold back on your hysterical posts?

What facts were presented to the media.

Do you mean what Coppinger and Smyth said in the Dail.

Have the "facts" being confirmed by a reputable source.

tretorn wrote: »

No, I cant point to the source.

....

I dont want them representing me and neither would most Irish people, hence their tiny, tiny proportion of support from the electorate.

Source for that please?
Or is that another thin you can't point to for some reason?

tretorn wrote: »

No, I cant point to the source.

To the best of my knowledge the consultants saw the foetus had an abnormality but they wanted to wait for a few weeks to ascertain whether it was fatal or not. I think it was Ruthless Coppinger who gave this information in the Dail, I think she also referred to the pregnant woman as having an FFA, surely she should have said she was carrying a foetus with an FFA, is the foetus due no respect at all.

The Board of the Coombe have said they had no input into clinical decisions.

This is as much information as we have now. I generally dont listen to anything Coppinger or Smyth have to say, I dont want them representing me and neither would most Irish people, hence their tiny, tiny proportion of support from the electorate.

The type of people who support them would be the sort that would support protests against Leo, I think about four people turned up at a protest outside the Dail the other day,it was too cold for the other wannabee supporters to get out of bed. If there were tickets for sale to a concert costing a hundred euros per ticket they would be at the keyboard bright and early with the credit card to hand to secure a ticket.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/woman-refused-abortion-will-travel-to-united-kingdom-1.3762063

The only information we have is the information that has been published in the media. If the claim you made is not published in the media then you made it up and you should withdraw it. I have seen no such claim published and you cannot point a source of this information.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

tretorn wrote: »

No, I cant point to the source.

To the best of my knowledge the consultants saw the foetus had an abnormality but they wanted to wait for a few weeks to ascertain whether it was fatal or not.

The Board of the COOmbe have said they had no input into clinical decisions.

This is as much information as we have now. I generally dont listen to anything Coppinger or Smyth have to say, I dont want them representing me and neither would most Irish people, hence their tiny, tiny proportion of support from the electorate.

The type of people who support them would be the sort that would support protests against Leo, I think about four people turned up at a protest outside the Dail the other day,it was too cold for the other wannabee supporters to get out of bed. If there were tickets for sale to a concert costing a hundred euros per ticket they would be at the keyboard bright and early with the credit card to hand to secure a ticket.

The best of your knowledge seems to be extremely limited, with all due respect, and is based on absolutely nothing in a case with very few hard facts.

Slagging off of two TDs who you claim are reaching the end of their careers is not really the crux of this case, notwithstanding the fact that it's the most important bit for you.

tretorn wrote: »

What facts were presented to the media.

Do you mean what Coppinger and Smyth said in the Dail.

Have the "facts" being confirmed by a reputable source.

The facts the rest of us here are discussing.

Seriously, if you wish to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion and not just rant and rave you will need to read the information the rest of us have read.

The best of your knowledge is limited to what Ruth and her sidekick said in the Dail.

The media reported what Ruth and Bride said, this doesnt make anything factual.

tretorn wrote: »

What facts were presented to the media.

Do you mean what Coppinger and Smyth said in the Dail.

Have the "facts" being confirmed by a reputable source.

The Irish Times have spoken to the women and are reporting that 2 consultants approved the abortion.

end of the road

tretorn wrote: »

Well, no, the electorate were told the foetus right to life was constitutionally protected after twelve weeks, the only constitutional amendment was to remove protection for life up to twelve weeks.

Abortion could only be carried out on foetuses after twelve weeks in case of FFAs that were confirmed by two medical professionals. No where in the legislation does it say the woman carrying the foetus with a defect should have a say, it quite clearly states the grounds on which life is to be terminated after twelve weeks and no amount of female hysterics in the Dail is going to change this.

How do I put king gob on ignore, wont waste my mind with his nonsense.

click on the username and then click add x user to your ignore list. otherwise you can just simply ignore them as i have had to do with another user due to their behavior.

amcalester wrote: »

You keep ignoring the fact that 2 doctors diagnosed a FFA and that is the reason this woman requested an abortion. That's pretty pertinent information.

Trying to twist this into simply a woman requesting an abortion after 12 weeks is very dishonest, and shows the usual lack of compassion we see from the anti-choice brigade.

the thing is we don't know for sure that it is fact. we don't know exactly what happened or what was said. what we likely do know is that this so-called anti-choice aren't any worse then their opposition when we get down to the nitty gritty.

Thank You, I will do that immediately.

robarmstrong

end of the road wrote: »

what we likely do know is that this so-called anti-choice aren't any worse then their opposition when we get down to the nitty gritty.

Does nitty gritty include harrassing pregnant women outside maternity hospitals, posting graphic images outside primary schools and overall telling nothing but lies throughout their campaign?

If so, yes, "anti-choice" are a whole lot worse than pro-choice.

tretorn wrote: »

The best of your knowledge is limited to what Ruth and her sidekick said in the Dail.

The media reported what Ruth and Bride said, this doesnt make anything factual.

either substantiate the part in bold below or withdraw it as the lie that it is.

tretorn wrote: »

The facts arent at all clear.

The news states that two consultants wanted to wait for a few weeks to determine whether the defect was fatal or not. Ethically and legally this is what they are obliged to do under the legisation permitting abortion in Ireland. They can only certify that a defect is fatal is in their opinion if it is beyond doubt and in this case in the experts opinion there was doubt.

What am I missing here, what is all the outrage about.

amcalester wrote: »

The Irish Times have spoken to the women and are reporting that 2 consultants approved the abortion.

Have the two consultants involved made a statement.

There are usually two sides to every story.

The Irish Times speaking to one party involved does not make anything factual.

tretorn wrote: »

Well, no, the electorate were told the foetus right to life was constitutionally protected after twelve weeks, the only constitutional amendment was to remove protection for life up to twelve weeks.

This is not the case.

end of the road wrote: »

the thing is we don't know for sure that it is fact. we don't know exactly what happened or what was said. what we likely do know is that this so-called anti-choice aren't any worse then their opposition when we get down to the nitty gritty.

The paper of record are reporting on it, so that is good enough for me.

pleasant Co.

amcalester wrote: »

The Irish Times have spoken to the women and are reporting that 2 consultants approved the abortion.

They spoke to the woman, but in the article you refer to the "reporting that 2 consultants approved the abortion" is from Ruth Coppinger and not the woman herself.

This is what Ruth Coppinger said:

One doctor, her consultant and another consultant was brought in who said yes, it is a fatal foetal abnormality but a week later, it went to the board, and the board overruled that.

It is as yet unclear what the full story is as the irish times failed to include that bit of information when they spoke to the woman in question. Very odd not to do some real basic fact checking on the Irish Times' part.

tretorn wrote: »

Well, no, the electorate were told the foetus right to life was constitutionally protected after twelve weeks, the only constitutional amendment was to remove protection for life up to twelve weeks.

Abortion could only be carried out on foetuses after twelve weeks in case of FFAs that were confirmed by two medical professionals. No where in the legislation does it say the woman carrying the foetus with a defect should have a say, it quite clearly states the grounds on which life is to be terminated after twelve weeks and no amount of female hysterics in the Dail is going to change this.

How do I put king gob on ignore, wont waste my mind with his nonsense.

we were absolutely not told this and to claim such after the extensive debates that we have had here can only be a lie. There is no other reasonable explanation for you saying this.

tretorn wrote: »

The Irish Times speaking to one party involved does not make anything factual.

This from a poster who has been unable to substantiate ANY claim they have made

;);)

seamus

martingriff wrote: »

Will I would think that if she had the 2 letters the others would accomodate her especially as they are both prepared so I thought there be no red tape and with 2 TD's behind you it would vanish very quickly.

It's not that simple in reality. A pregnant woman can't just rock up to any maternity hospital and demand to speak to a consultant.

When you're pregnant, you pick a maternity hospital, and from then on they deal with you, and your appointments are booked in weeks ahead of schedule.

Yes, you can change maternity hospitals, but that involves a transfer through official channels, including your history/file being sent across, and appointments having to be rebooked.

Realistically if this woman presented to (say) the Rotunda, she would have to be scheduled in for an appointment before she could even see a doctor. The machinations would take over from that point on, record transfer, etc. It's not a medical emergency so while she would be treated with priority, she would not be treated urgently.
At the first appointment, the doctor would decide that s/he needed another scan to see it for themselves. Depending on the location, that may requiring booking in for a separate appointment.

Once that was done, it would then be referred to a second doctor for their opinion. Who may ask for another scan.

And by the time those 3-4 weeks have passed, the Rotunda may still say, "We need to wait", or she may have miscarried.

Our maternity system works pretty well, but it doesn't work fast. Pregnancy being what it is, unless a woman presents with an imminent risk to her health, then you won't be rushed anywhere to get another test done that day. You'll get scheduled in for another appointment in a few days to look at it then.

Call me Al

tretorn wrote: »

Well, no, the electorate were told the foetus right to life was constitutionally protected after twelve weeks, the only constitutional amendment was to remove protection for life up to twelve weeks.

No this is totally incorrect.
The referendum was to remove the 8th amendment from the Constitution and to allow for independent legislation to be drawn up surrounding abortion services within the health system.
Nowhere in the constitution does it now say anything about protection of the foetus after 12 weeks.

tretorn wrote: »

Thank You, I will do that immediately.

Oooor, you can do the not cowardly and dishonest thing and address the point and support your claims.

Ignoring requests for you to do so does not make your position look stronger or more appealing.
It makes your position look weak and dishonest.

end of the road wrote: »

click on the username and then click add x user to your ignore list. otherwise you can just simply ignore them as i have had to do with another user due to their behavior.

No, you ignore points because you cannot answer them honestly and you know that they show the flaws in your position.

You do not fool anyone by pretending it's about "behavior".
It's curious that you think you do.