nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

robindch

...continuing on from previous threads on abortion (abortion part 1, part 2 and part 3).

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I may be misremembering but I seem to recall the Anti-Repeal lobby was also insisting that the clause to allow abortion after 12 weeks in the case of a diagnosis of FFA was unnecessary as all the relevant tests could be preformed prior to 12 weeks.

Obviously, they can't.

That was only a last grasp attempt late in the campaign when they seen that the majority weren't going to vote their way. Same way they said that cases due to rape could be dealt with despite stating for the entire campaign that rape was no excuse for abortion.

People seem through the bs

amcalester

DubInMeath wrote: »

Really, because your thanking posters in the the following thread who are calling for people who have had abortions or support pro choice to be murdered

Also have screen shots with your thanking the poster just in case they magically disappear

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...4&postcount=97

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...&postcount=117

So sort of goes against your earlier statements that you don't thank such posts or agree with such posters.

As for the poster in question your inaccurate to say the least in relation to their views.

Links don't work.

seasidedub

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I may be misremembering but I seem to recall the Anti-Repeal lobby was also insisting that the clause to allow abortion after 12 weeks in the case of a diagnosis of FFA was unnecessary as all the relevant tests could be preformed prior to 12 weeks.

Obviously, they can't.

The results of truly diagnostic tests (not screening) are not available prior to 12 weeks other than a bespoke non-invasive diagnostic test for cystic fibrosis or a few other conditions (sent to UK) - this is not the harmony/panorama, it works on relative haplotype dosage and is designed for the specific pregnancy.

A good ultrasound prior to 12 weeks will pick up anencephaly obviously, and that's fatal.

If panorama/harmony is positive for Down Syndrome the result won't be available early enough to terminate under the 12 week rule - and as it's only screening most women would wait on the diagnostic test anyway

drunkmonkey

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It was a fetus not a baby.

It's been reported as a baby in the media. I believe it was a baby, the parents thought they were having a baby.
Calling it a fetus is basically you and other posters saying it doesn't matter, it's just a fetus get over it.

Bannasidhe

seasidedub wrote: »

If panorama/harmony is positive for Down Syndrome the result won't be available early enough to terminate under the 12 week rule - and as it's only screening most women would wait on the diagnostic test anyway

Just clarifying that Down Syndrome is not a FFA, but a disability, and a diagnosis of such (or any disability) wouldn't be grounds for an abortion after 12 weeks.

Again - the Anti-Repeal lobby was trying to claim fetus' with diagnosis of Down Syndrome would be aborted so it's an important clarification.

[Deleted User]

amcalester wrote: »

Links don't work.

Working for me

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110202184&postcount=97

The second one appears to have been deleted, not sure if by the user or a mod, but said that anyone supporting or had an abortion has no right to life

Just in case the link doesn't work

Bannasidhe

DubInMeath wrote: »

Working for me

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110202184&postcount=97

The second one appears to have been deleted

Just in case the link doesn't work

Mod: Please do not import links from other threads. Tempting though it might be. Thanking you.

seasidedub

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Just clarifying that Down Syndrome is not a FFA, but a disability, and a diagnosis of such (or any disability) wouldn't be grounds for an abortion after 12 weeks.

Again - the Anti-Repeal lobby was trying to claim fetus' with diagnosis of Down Syndrome would be aborted so it's an important clarification.

Yes - but the point is that if a truly diagnostic result for Down Syndrome were available prior to 12 weeks a woman could terminate under the 12 week rule as she wouldn't need to divulge the reason. This caused scaremongering in the referendum. A truly diagnostic result isn't available prior to 12 weeks

Bannasidhe

seasidedub wrote: »

Yes - but the point is that if a truly diagnostic result for Down Syndrome were available prior to 12 weeks a woman could terminate under the 12 week rule as she wouldn't need to divulge the reason. This caused scaremongering in the referendum. A truly diagnostic result isn't available prior to 12 weeks

Oh, I understood your point and it was well made.
I just wanted to clarify the legal position that a diagnosis of Down Syndrome- or any other disability - is not grounds for an abortion after 12 weeks so we didn't disappear down that rabbit hole of misinformation again.

nozzferrahhtoo

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's been reported as a baby in the media. I believe it was a baby, the parents thought they were having a baby.

The media just report it in the way that will get the most emotive clicks. I would not base linguistic accuracy on what words THEY use.

Your personal beliefs are your own. They do not make facts.

The last sentence however I have no issue with. There is nothing wrong with describing the process of pregnancy as "having a baby". That is descriptive of the entire process, not the state of the fetus at any single given time.

Interesting however you ignored the entirety of my post, including the bits directed at you, and only focused on a single linguistic issue of pedantry. I knew you people would. It is why I put it there.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Calling it a fetus is basically you and other posters saying it doesn't matter, it's just a fetus get over it.

It depends what you mean by "matter". In and of itself I do not think a non sentient entity ever "matters". Be it a fetus or a rock.

It clearly however "mattered" to the people in question and they made a medical choice based on false information and I have extreme empathy for their plight. So do not put words into my mouth while ignoring the majority of the words I actually did write to you. I would never take a "get over it" attitude to them.

The fetus here does not matter. The adults do. And all my empathy and concern is directed at them, and anyone like them in the future.

Mark Hamill

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Let them travel with a half arsed diagnosis it shouldn't have happened here,

So it would have been ok for the foetus to have been aborted, as long as it didn't happen in Ireland?

Timberrrrrrrr

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So it would have been ok for the foetus to have been aborted, as long as it didn't happen in Ireland?

That has always been the pro life stance.

Mark Hamill

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Very sad the case of misdiagnosis and the resulting death of the young baby in the national maternity hospital.
Heartbreaking for the family, we need to review at the legislation, one case is too many.
And just dismissing a baby as a fetus is something I don't understand.
It's a baby once a woman is pregnant it's a baby

Maybe you have been asked before, but, do you believe that miscarriages should be invested like any other unexplained death?

Charles Ingles

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Maybe you have been asked before, but, do you believe that miscarriages should be invested like any other unexplained death?

No of course not they are part of the natural cycle of pregnancy

nozzferrahhtoo

Charles Ingles wrote: »

No of course not they are part of the natural cycle of pregnancy

But death is a natural part of the cycle of life too. But we investigate unexplained deaths to ascertain whether they were foul play or not. To make sure they were "natural".

So why, to your mind at least, should miscarriages be any different? They have just as much potential to have been caused by malicious intention as any other death we might investigate.

This of course is not a problem for MY position on abortion and fetal rights. I am curious how you reconcile the disparity with your own however.

seasidedub

Quote: drunkmonkey
Let them travel with a half arsed diagnosis it shouldn't have happened here,

There was no half-arsed diagnosis.

Panorama/harmony positive for trisomy 18 = high level screen but not a diagnosis. Options then are CVS at 12 weeks approx or amniocentesis at 15 plus weeks. Amniocentesis is reliable, CVS has a risk of placental mosaicism, but the couple (based on timeline) probably chose qfpcr a molecule method of detecting chromosomal abnormalities and there is a margin of error for confined placental mosaicism- this case will hinge on whether this was explained properly. This is why we need better genetic services and genetic counselling services in maternity hospitals. Even obgyns dont always fully understand. There was always a margin of error here.

aloyisious

splinter65 wrote: »

Had they not chosen to have an abortion they would currently be expecting to deliver a healthy baby. The 8th amendment would have protected that potentially healthy baby. Those are also facts.

The opposite side of the coin is that if the test results had all been the same in respect of the diagnosis, then the 8th amendment would have ensured the couple would be expecting the delivery of an unhealthy baby [if the couple had chosen to stay in the republic and not travel for a foreign abortion]. That would also be a fact.

crossman47

aloyisious wrote: »

The opposite side of the coin is that if the test results had all been the same in respect of the diagnosis, then the 8th amendment would have ensured the couple would be expecting the delivery of an unhealthy baby [if the couple had chosen to stay in the republic and not travel for a foreign abortion]. That would also be a fact.

True but the death of a healthy baby is surely worse than the birth of an unhealthy one.

Cabaal

crossman47 wrote: »

True but the death of a healthy baby is surely worse than the birth of an unhealthy one.

Only the women/couple can answer that
Giving birth to a baby that you've known for months is going to be in pain and is going to suffer and die shortly after birth can be extremely painful and distressing.

If anything it could be considered much worse on the basis that you know exactly whats going to happen for months before hand.

robindch

Mod:

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Harris's head should be on a spike along with whoever advised those parents without 100% confirmation the baby didn't stand a chance.

Calls for public violence - especially against elected officials who have been repeatedly intimidated at their private residences by paramilitary-style groups - is completely unacceptable on boards.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/protesters-gather-outside-simon-harris-s-home-again-1.3874486
https://www.thejournal.ie/simon-harris-protest-home-4488764-Feb2019/

Any posters who post violent threats will be banned immediately from A+A and may be banned site-wide.

robindch

Televangelist Pat Robertson says that Alamaba has gone "too far" with its "ill-considered" law:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/16/pat-robertson-says-alabama-abortion-law-has-gone-too-far/3690680002/

nozzferrahhtoo

Wow is he still alive? I have not heard anything about or from him for some years now. I recall him being about as much a fundie Christian as I have ever encountered however. To the point he even used his platform at one point to tell a Christian Woman to leave her Atheist Husband because they could never work out and that she was..... his exact words at the time..... not to "lie with Belial".

If HE is making even remotely sensible noises on the issue therefore.... that really says something.

aloyisious

Another possible error in respect to the Maternity Hospital [which also won't have any beneficial effect for the couple] seems to have occurred. RTE has reported that the UK institute which was mentioned as investigating the test misreading issue has reportedly said it has NOT been contacted in respect to the supposed investigation. It remains to be seen if some-one jumped the gun by making the investigation request public or if something really silly has occurred.

Cabaal

aloyisious wrote: »

Another possible error in respect to the Maternity Hospital [which also won't have any beneficial effect for the couple] seems to have occurred. RTE has reported that the UK institute which was mentioned as investigating the test misreading issue has reportedly said it has NOT been contacted in respect to the supposed investigation. It remains to be seen if some-one jumped the gun by making the investigation request public or if something really silly has occurred.

Perhaps pro-life nurse or admin worker jumping the gun?
Wouldn't be the first time information was leaked by a HSE worker in relation to abortion services.

Charles Ingles

Cabaal wrote: »

Perhaps pro-life nurse or admin worker jumping the gun?
Wouldn't be the first time information was leaked by a HSE worker in relation to abortion services.

Good we need whistle blowers in the HSE to inform the public the reality of the repealing of the eight amendment

Timberrrrrrrr

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Good we need whistle blowers in the HSE to inform the public the reality of the repealing of the eight amendment

How would having the 8th in place have stopped this from happening?

Igotadose

The circumstances around the testing, the communication of the results and the decision making involved in those processes needs to be investigated. The HSE seem to be pretty damned incompetent in a lot of disciplines, this seems more like the Cervical Check scandal, where information was mishandled badly.

Charles Ingles

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

How would having the 8th in place have stopped this from happening?

It never could have happened as an abortion couldn't have taken place under law

aloyisious

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Good we need whistle blowers in the HSE to inform the public the reality of the repealing of the eight amendment

OK Charles. From that I am being led to conclude that despite your stated position here that you are in favour of pregnant women being allowed access to/get abortions in the cases of Rape and FFA, that you actually would prefer the state's legal position on abortion to revert to when the 8th amendment was in the constitution preventing any abortions at all from happening here legally. Unless, of course [as I have previously asked of you] you are of a conflicted Christian mind where it comes to abortions being available here legally to pregnant women.

Are you really open to pregnant women being allowed access to abortion as you stated or of a "floodgates" mindset where it comes to the legalization of abortion here?

robindch

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If HE is making even remotely sensible noises on the issue therefore.... that really says something.

Check out his reasoning though. It seems he's less concerned about people and more concerned about politics - specifically, that a constitutional appeal to SCOTUS will strike down the law, whereas a less extreme law would have a better chance of not being struck down.