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

Charles Ingles

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?[/quote
I believe it should be used in extreme cases only.
I believe every abortion is the killing of a child.
I also believe abortion on demand will just lead to abortion been seen as a form of birth control

Bannasidhe

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 is it "whistleblowing" when nothing illegal is taking place?

There are many things happening in the HSE that desperately need whistles blown - accessing confidential patient records and then informing outsiders that abortions are scheduled are not among them. And yes, this has happened.

Timberrrrrrrr

Charles Ingles wrote: »

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

They would have got the same diagnosis, they would have still decided on abortion, they would have had to travel to the UK for it. The end result would have still been the same.

Calina

Charles Ingles wrote: »

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

We need people who invade the privacy of patients like we need a hole in the head. I swear if a wannabe whistleblower did this to me, I would want them bankrupted for life. It is obscene and evil to release medical histories like this to the press without the express written permission of the patient concerned or their next of kin where appropriate.

This is not whistleblowing. It is not even close. It is pure abuse.

aloyisious

Charles Ingles wrote: »

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?[/quote
I believe it should be used in extreme cases only.
I believe every abortion is the killing of a child.
I also believe abortion on demand will just lead to abortion been seen as a form of birth control

I believe that a child is a BORN living breathing sounding-off human person as distinct from a foetus in the womb which I see as a life-form with the prospect of becoming the child I described above. The foetus is at the mercy of nature till then.

I would prefer that foetus be given the leeway as far as practicable to become a child but, like you, accept that there are mishaps of nature during pregnancy which become apparent as the pregnancy advances from conception onwards and lead to abortion eventually been seen as a medical-necessity for the foetus and the woman. I see how the humanistic approach to abortion that you agree with [extreme cases] is something good, in as far as it goes.

Unlike you I don't see every abortion as the killing of a child.

Unlike you I don't follow the party line that abortion will be used as a form of birth control. That can end in extremis where that party-line is liable to misuse. I see that line as being for debate on another "defined topic" thread.

SusieBlue

Charles Ingles wrote: »

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

Or they would have travelled to the UK like the many thousands of desperate couples before them pre-repeal.
It wouldn’t have stopped anything. Abortion was happening in Ireland before repeal, suggesting otherwise is highly ignorant of known facts.

SusieBlue

splinter65 wrote: »

Shouting in capitals doesn’t make you right Susie. It’s just your opinion that’s all. Any comment to make on this latest debacle?

It’s not my opinion, it’s a fact. You endlessly insisting otherwise is shameful to the memory of that woman. How dare you.

Cabaal

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Good we need whistle blowers in the HSE to inform the public.....

Whistle blowers who break GDPR and who release details in relation to a private patient to the public and pro life protesters?

Strange to see both yourself and EOTR (who thanked your post) endorse illegal activity like this.

Shame on you both.

aloyisious

The couple who are involved in the NMH medical mishap are waiting to see who will be running the review of what happened, and its terms and conditions before deciding on what they will do, according to their solicitor. With a lawyer representing them, its entered the legal arena with attendant risks for commentators so I'll be staying away from commenting on that case for now.

Charles Ingles

Cabaal wrote: »

Whistle blowers who break GDPR and who release details in relation to a private patient to the public and pro life protesters?

Strange to see both yourself and EOTR (who thanked your post) endorse illegal activity like this.

Shame on you both.

Whistle blowers by definition will break the law to bring information to public attention.
It's a case of serving the greater good.
How else can things be changed for the better

Kidchameleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes that was my error. I meant 639 the post directly after it. My bad. But at the same time you should have been able to spot that minor error yourself if you had cared to. 639 was a large post, hard to miss, but you ignored it in it's entirety. Then and now.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Oh bull. The lack of a question mark does not reduce it from being a two way conversation. A conversation you ignored and dropped out of entirely by ignoring just about everything in the post. Then and now.

Not everyone's browser renders this site the same way. What might be the next post for you may be the next page for me so please dont make assumptions. Its not really fair to accuse me of ignoring you considering I have directly asked you what questions you would like me to answer and then, to the best of my knowledge, answered them.

Response to post 639:

Well firstly, I thanked that post so I most certainly did not ignore it. It is very very unfair on your part to continually accuse me of ignoring you. That being said, at this stage I feel I have pretty much covered everything in that post with a response but I will clarify one thing. In my opinion, a fertilized egg is a form of human. A fetus is a form of human. I am not saying they are sentient humans, I am simply saying that they are somewhere on the scale of humanity.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not so at all. There is no evidence for this. Could you substantiate this claim please? Maybe with an introduction defining what you think "sentient" means in this context. Clue: It has nothing to do with viability.

Sentience to me means having self awareness. If you have ever met a 24 week old baby you would not doubt that they are sentient. There is a reason that medical staff encourage parents to touch & hold premature babies, to be near them, because the babies need to feel it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

YOU cited this video and I think you further eroded your own credibility by doing so given how dishonest and distortion based the speakers points were. I would, as should you with even the minimum application of self awareness, be mightily embarrassed to have been seen to cite such a crock of guff and dishonesty.

If you find you are not embarrassed to have done so, I can only prescribe a serious and very elongated bout of introspection on the matter.

As I have said twice now, I do not speak for Ben Shapiro, I do not follow him. I have no problem with him other than his annoying voice. I am not embarrassed for sharing the video. I have already stated that I do not agree with much of what he said in the video. It was a response to a poster who claimed he was against abortion because he is Jewish, nothing more.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nor, I trust you will note, did I claim you did. So I am not sure what this statement is for other than filler.

You implied it:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Further however, we can not assume that everyone seeking abortion is having an unplanned pregnancy.

*****

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What I did say and do however was point out that while we are talking about the efficacy rates of contraception.... it also pays to remember that that is only part of the big picture. Many people seeking abortion are doing so despite having a PLANNED pregnancy. And we should not lose sight of that while discussing unplanned ones.

I certainly will not avoid answering. I think you are only maintaining the narrative that people will avoid answering by only targeting the users you already believe will. Without discussing it with the ones who have not yet dodged one of your questions EVER. Such as me.

My position on it is quite clear. The moment the fetus reaches a stage of development at which we have any reason to believe it has become a sentient agent, then it has rights. And the mother no longer has the right to kill it. I would certainly therefore deny her that right.

What I would allow for however is for her not to have to carry the entire pregnancy. The moment we have reason to believe we can terminate the pregnancy and maintain the life of the child.... we should do so at her request.

See? Not so hard to answer now was it? You can now openly and honestly and loudly retract your claim we will avoid answering you.

I am comfortable with 12, 16, even 20 weeks. At 24 weeks it starts to get grey. Actually we have good reason to STILL think the fetus has not attained sentience at that point but I am less inclined to stand by it as a scientific fact. So I would certainly start to get uncomfortable around then. But neither would I lose sleep if I woke up in an Ireland with 24 week abortion tomorrow.

Thankfully however the near totality of choice based abortion ALWAYS happens.... we are talking 95-98% of the time..... in or before week 16. Actually over 90% in or before week 12. And this statistic appears to hold true in countries with NO legal abortion, in countries with 24 week legal abortion, or in countries like Canada with no theoretical limits on abortion.

So in THAT light I would not really legislate for 24 weeks as it is pretty much not required except for some rare outlier cases which we could legislate for separately, if at all.

Some great food for thought there thank you. Personally, where I am at the moment is I could not deny an abortion to a rape victim, regardless of how long it takes her to come to terms with the trauma and make a decision. I would imagine it is the most horrific experience a human can go through. I dont believe her genetic legacy should be tied to her rapist if she is against it & she should get the final say in that, not the state, in my opinion. It is unfortunate that the child/fetus may need to suffer but rape really is a heinous crime with disastrous consequences for many, not least the victim, in my opinion. The fallout it the fault of the evil perpetrator.

Kidchameleon

aloyisious wrote: »

The couple who are involved in the NMH medical mishap are waiting to see who will be running the review of what happened, and its terms and conditions before deciding on what they will do, according to their solicitor. With a lawyer representing them, its entered the legal arena with attendant risks for commentators so I'll be staying away from commenting on that case for now.

Hopefully none of the HSE staff will be found guilty of negligence, they are a dedicated lot with so much on their plates. They do such amazing work. At the end of the day, there is no real loss for the couple, they can simply try again.

Kidchameleon

DubInMeath wrote: »

Your starting to contradict yourself a bit here, you apparently known a person who was born at 24 weeks and is a healthy youngster. You spent some time arguing the point with a poster where you infer that the survival rate was higher.

If you have read the exchanges between myself and that poster you will see that I know full well what the survival rate is of premature births of 24 weeks - it is circa 35%. Pretty good odds in my opinion. Perhaps not good odds in yours but we dont have to agree on that. If I were to define viability as a term, I would say that is is a favorable assessment but does not imply guarantees.

SusieBlue

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Whistle blowers by definition will break the law to bring information to public attention.
It's a case of serving the greater good.
How else can things be changed for the better

Private citizens medical notes & records have no place in the public domain.
Any civil servant who breaches confidentiality should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, hopefully imprisoned to deter future vigilantes.

What you are suggesting is unacceptable and a serious breach to patient privacy. I doubt you’d be so in favour if it was your own private matters being discussed in a public domain.

splinter65

SusieBlue wrote: »

It’s not my opinion, it’s a fact. You endlessly insisting otherwise is shameful to the memory of that woman. How dare you.

Mrs Halepeenaver died of sepsis due to neglect 4 days after miscarrying. That’s what the autopsy report says. I’m not endlessly insisting anything. I’m not saying anything to be ashamed of and your outraged “how dare you” falls on deaf ears.
What’s actually shameful is how the pro abortion lobby have hauled and continue to haul Mrs Halapanaveer around the media to be used in this way. That really is shameful.

Calina

splinter65 wrote: »

Mrs Halepeenaver died of sepsis due to neglect 4 days after miscarrying. That’s what the autopsy report says. I’m not endlessly insisting anything. I’m not saying anything to be ashamed of and your outraged “how dare you” falls on deaf ears.
What’s actually shameful is how the pro abortion lobby have hauled and continue to haul Mrs Halapanaveer around the media to be used in this way. That really is shameful.

She requested a termination. We would not be here discussing her if she had been given one.

splinter65

SusieBlue wrote: »

Private citizens medical notes & records have no place in the public domain.
Any civil servant who breaches confidentiality should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, hopefully imprisoned to deter future vigilantes.

What you are suggesting is unacceptable and a serious breach to patient privacy. I doubt you’d be so in favour if it was your own private matters being discussed in a public domain.

But you had no problem dragging Mrs Halapanaveers records out into the public over and over in order to use them to get your abortion on demand agenda over the line. The hypocrisy here is ripe.

[Deleted User]

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If you have read the exchanges between myself and that poster you will see that I know full well what the survival rate is of premature births of 24 weeks - it is circa 35%. Pretty good odds in my opinion. Perhaps not good odds in yours but we dont have to agree on that. If I were to define viability as a term, I would say that is is a favorable assessment but does not imply guarantees.

It's 20 to 35% chance of survival, but increased risk of health issues later in life with a shorter overall life expectancy.

Not great odds in my opinion.

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

But you had no problem dragging Mrs Halapanaveers records out into the public over and over in order to use them to get your abortion on demand agenda over the line. The hypocrisy here is ripe.

Nope your being hypocritical, the report was a public one and was in relation to the cause of her death. The public was not provided with her medical records.

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

Mrs Halepeenaver died of sepsis due to neglect 4 days after miscarrying. That’s what the autopsy report says. I’m not endlessly insisting anything. I’m not saying anything to be ashamed of and your outraged “how dare you” falls on deaf ears.
What’s actually shameful is how the pro abortion lobby have hauled and continue to haul Mrs Halapanaveer around the media to be used in this way. That really is shameful.

It's pretty shameful how you and most of the anti choice side deny the fact she would be alive if she was granted an abortion.
But hey don't let the truth get in the way.

SusieBlue

splinter65 wrote: »

Mrs Halepeenaver died of sepsis due to neglect 4 days after miscarrying. That’s what the autopsy report says. I’m not endlessly insisting anything. I’m not saying anything to be ashamed of and your outraged “how dare you” falls on deaf ears.
What’s actually shameful is how the pro abortion lobby have hauled and continue to haul Mrs Halapanaveer around the media to be used in this way. That really is shameful.

She would be here if she had been given an abortion.
The negligence could never have happened and the sepsis couldn’t have developed and she wouldn’t have died.

At the very least she wouldn’t have spent a whole week in hospital, suffering in pain and grieving while her baby slowly died inside her. Deny it all you want but it’s the truth.

If you have an issue with the media & others highlighting how our barbarian law caused her death perhaps you should take it up with her father & husband who both supported the Repeal movement & wanted Savitas unnecessary death to be remembered for what it was.

splinter65 wrote: »

But you had no problem dragging Mrs Halapanaveers records out into the public over and over in order to use them to get your abortion on demand agenda over the line. The hypocrisy here is ripe.

Public record, public knowledge, and public reports all already in the public domain.
Not quite the same as hacking into someone’s medical files and publishing them.
Don’t let that stop your hyperbolic faux outrage though.

smacl

splinter65 wrote: »

The hypocrisy here is ripe.

DubInMeath wrote: »

Nope your being hypocritical

Mod: While this is an emotive topic, please remember to attack the post and not the poster.

Bannasidhe

splinter65 wrote: »

But you had no problem dragging Mrs Halapanaveers records out into the public over and over in order to use them to get your abortion on demand agenda over the line. The hypocrisy here is ripe.

Savita halappanavar's next of kin went public.
Her parent's issued an appeal for the 8th to be repealed.
The details of her case were a matter of public record - I believe, but open to correction, at her husband's insistence.

That is absolutely not the same thing as a civil servant sneakily accessing a patient's confidential details and making details available to third parties without either the prior knowledge or consent of the living individual.

Here are two examples of that apparently happening;

The HSE is to investigate whether a patient’s confidentiality was breached after a “despicable” social media post was followed by an anti-abortion protest outside a hospital.

On Sunday Raymond Kinsella, a former professor at University College Dublin, tweeted that Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda was scheduled to carry out its first termination yesterday morning. “Please pray hard that the #mother will recognise the #baby as a gift from God,” he added.

Seven demonstrators were outside the hospital yesterday holding placards that read “Warning: killing in progress” and “Abortion is murder”.

Simon Harris, the health minister, said that he had discussed the matter with the HSE interim director-general, who shared his view that abortion was lawful and that patients deserved respect and were entitled…

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/patient-data-leak-alerts-abortion-protesters-drf59rzk5

The allegation claims a woman who had an abortion this week was sent home following a scan and told no further scans were needed.

It alleges the woman received a call from a mobile number from a man who knew her name and address, and said she would need to undergo a follow-up scan. This call was allegedly followed by a text giving directions to a premises on the northside of Dublin.

The woman claims that following a call to the hospital, which knew nothing of the appointment, she called the number again and was subjected to verbal abuse for having an abortion.

The woman says she does not know how those behind the call obtained her personal details and said she was sharing the allegation as a warning to other women.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/details-allegedly-leaked-of-woman-who-had-abortion-901597.html

SusieBlue

Just came across this heatbreaking video from Louisville, Kentucky of a woman being guided into a clinic under protection with a coat over her head to hide her identity, while ‘peaceful’ protestors try to obstruct her path & shout at her.

I’m very curious as to whether anyone here, particularly EOTR, thinks this is acceptable. Is this the kind of ‘peaceful protest’ they’d like to see outside our own doctors offices?

Or can we all agree that this is a shameful attack of intimidation on a frightened woman who is just trying to go about her private business without interference?

I feel so, so sorry for her.
Bravo to the clinic assistants who protected her, more compassionate people like that are needed.
I hope we never see the likes of this here.

https://www.facebook.com/100001985828913/posts/2203693379706835?s=1543554142&sfns=mo

robindch

Alabama’s governor, one Kay Ivey, signed the state’s hardline antiabortion bill into law on Wednesday. This evening, Alabama plans to execute Michael Samra, the seventh person to be executed by Alabama since Ivey took over just over two years ago.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/enterthefray/la-ol-alabama-abortion-death-penalty-20190516-story.html

Ivey’s tweet announcing the antiabortion law claimed that every Alabamian believes deeply “that every life is precious & that every life is a sacred gift from God.”

https://twitter.com/GovernorKayIvey/status/1128781312750432262

robarmstrong

“Every life is precious & every life is a sacred gift from god”

- outlaws abortion and endorses capital punishment.

You couldn’t make that up tbh. Pro-life if and when it suits or applies.

Kidchameleon

SusieBlue wrote: »

https://www.facebook.com/100001985828913/posts/2203693379706835?s=1543554142&sfns=mo

Thats sick. You will see that in Ireland unfortunately.

Mark Hamill

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I believe every abortion is the killing of a child.

Then you must see miscarriages as the death of a child, so why don't you believe that miscarriages should be investegated, like the sudden unexplained death of a born child would be?

Charles Ingles

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then you must see miscarriages as the death of a child, so why don't you believe that miscarriages should be investegated, like the sudden unexplained death of a born child would be?

Ok the fair enough let's do that so

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Thats sick. You will see that in Ireland unfortunately.

I honestly don't think so. There isn't the same concentration of hard-line conservative religious loons in this country, nor would they be tolerated abusing pregnant women in public if there were. American society is far more polarised than Ireland in many respects. I honestly believe for all the horrors in our past, Ireland is a considerably more tolerant, egalitarian and inclusive society. The weather may be crap but the people by and large are decent. Purely my opinion that.