Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

stefanovich wrote:

Did the doctor recommend abortion? If so they should be struck off.

Abortion is legal, why should the doctor be struck off?

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Abortion is legal, why should the doctor be struck off?

If they recommended an abortion based on a test that was known to be inconclusive. That is gross negligence. I have no idea what advice they were given though.

stefanovich wrote:

. That is gross negligence. I have no idea what advice they were given though.

It's not, and yes most of your comments indicate you have no idea......

El_Duderino 09

mvl wrote: »

What do you mean by in utero tests: CVS or amniocentesis ?
For this case, can it be that only CVS was run ? or has amniocentesis also been done as part of the investigations ?
- difference between them being (from original article): CVS is with placental cells while amniocentesis is carried out directly on the foetus; they may show different readings.
From process point of view, if there is a better test out there - should the hospital authorize such a termination (post 12 weeks) until all the tests are concluded ?
- not getting why professor Malone was suggesting some patients decide not to wait two weeks for the second CVS - did they not run amniocentesis at all, if so, does anyone know why ...

Like i said, I don;t know much about the case. But the hospital has no right to block a termination until tests come back. The first test came back and the couple opted for termination. That's all the hospital needs to know. The hospital should advise the couple that the other tests could reveal new information but that doesn't mean the hospital should refuse the termination.

Igotadose

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Abortion is legal, why should the doctor be struck off?

Actually, anyone on the thread with medical experience in Iteland? I strongly doubt any medical profession ever would RECOMMEND a termination.

Igotadose wrote:

Actually, anyone on the thread with medical experience in Iteland? I strongly doubt any medical profession ever would RECOMMEND a termination.

You strongly doubt? So you don't know . I have been in the position where abortion was suggested as an option.

Shop40 wrote: »

Can you stop having a go at people! Just because they mightn’t agree with you, don’t insult please! We are ALL entitled to our opinions on this thread.

His ‘opinion’ is they made the wrong choice because the baby didn’t have Edwards syndrome. When they got the abortion, they believed the baby DID have Edwards syndrome.

Now he’s ranting on that they made the wrong choice and ‘didn’t do their homework’, not acknowledging the fact that they didn’t have all the facts.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing and Im sure if the parents knew what they know now, they wouldn’t have had a termination.

Banging on and on about how it was the wrong choice because the baby doesn’t have an FFA is really nasty and is being dishonest, because it’s not acknowledging the fact that the parents DIDN’T KNOW the baby didn’t have Edwards syndrome.

I don’t see how pointing that out is having a go at someone or being insulting whatsoever.

Faugheen

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You strongly doubt? So you don't know . I have been in the position where abortion was suggested as an option.

Suggested and reccomended are two different things.

I imagine doctors would recommend a termination if the mother's health is in danger.

stefanovich wrote: »

Well I would argue that the government should have introduced legislation to make foreign abortions also illegal.

We thankfully don’t do that any more, since the international disgrace we as a country caused ourselves when we imposed an injunction on a 14yr old girl who had been raped & sexually assaulted for many years by a man in his 40’s known to her family, from travelling to the UK to abort her rapists baby.
She was just a child herself & a victim of sexual abuse and after the outrage surrounding the case, freedom to travel to obtain abortions in other jurisdictions was made legal.
We were a nation of hypocrites.
No abortion here but the right to travel for one was constitutionally protected.

SusieBlue wrote: »

We thankfully don’t do that any more, since the international disgrace we as a country caused ourselves when we imposed an injunction on a 14yr old girl who had been raped & sexually assaulted for many years by a man in his 40’s known to her family, from travelling to the UK to abort her rapists baby.
She was just a child herself & a victim of sexual abuse and after the outrage surrounding the case, freedom to travel to obtain abortions in other jurisdictions was made legal.
We were a nation of hypocrites.
No abortion here but the right to travel for one was constitutionally protected.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Faugheen wrote:

I imagine doctors would recommend a termination if the mother's health is in danger.

You imagine wrong.

Faugheen wrote:

Suggested and reccomended are two different things.

Not really

political analyst wrote: »

If this case had arisen before the Eighth was repealed, it would have taken a bit longer for the mother to have an abortion because she would have had to go across the Irish Sea and then the result of the third test might have been available before she would have travelled.

Putting obstacles in the way of people who are having a crisis and under great distress is in no ones best interests.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Putting obstacles in the way of people who are having a crisis and under great distress is in no ones best interests.

Apart from the healthy baby's interests.

stefanovich wrote: »

Two wrongs don't make a right.

So you’d expect a 14 year old child to carry her rapists baby?

Also ‘wrong’ is a matter of opinion. If someone thinks that aborting their rapists baby is the right thing to do for themselves, then it isn’t the wrong choice.

stefanovich wrote: »

Apart from the healthy baby's interests.

How many unwanted babies have you personally adopted and fostered, seeing as you clearly feel so passionate about it all?
What do you personally do to help born children?

BorneTobyWilde

It's kinda weird that a living person who is dying and in agony has no right to die, but a perfectly healthy baby who has no say in the matter can legally be killed.

SusieBlue wrote: »

How many unwanted babies have you personally adopted and fostered, seeing as you clearly feel so passionate about it all?
What do you personally do to help born children?

What kind of question is that?

A hard life, or death. What would you choose? Most would choose the first because our most basic and primal instinct is to stay alive. An unwanted child with a tough life can grow up to be an amazing person.

A pregnant woman having an abortion is an abomination.

political analyst

SusieBlue wrote: »

Putting obstacles in the way of people who are having a crisis and under great distress is in no ones best interests.

What about the distress that they're under now because of erroneous test results?

stefanovich wrote: »

What kind of question is that?

A hard life, or death. What would you choose? Most would choose the first because our most basic and primal instinct is to stay alive. An unwanted child with a tough life can grow up to be an amazing person.

A pregnant woman having an abortion is an abomination.

I think it’s really subjective and the answer will differ from person to person, hence we should leave it up to individuals.
They’re the ones who have the live with the consequences, not you or me.
Unless it’s your womb or your baby, you shouldn’t have a say.

And once again I never said anything about people with tough childhoods not growing up to have amazing lives, so stop putting words in my mouth.

stefanovich wrote:

A pregnant woman having an abortion is an abomination.

That's just your opinion, nothing more.

SusieBlue wrote: »

I think it’s really subjective and the answer will differ from person to person, hence we should leave it up to individuals.
They’re the ones who have the live with the consequences, not you or me.
Unless it’s your womb or your baby, you shouldn’t have a say.

And once again I never said anything about people with tough childhoods not growing up to have amazing lives, so stop putting words in my mouth.

So once your child is born you can kill it whenever because it is yours?

political analyst

Why didn't doctors tell the couple that the third and final test would, unlike the first and second tests, be definitive about whether or not their baby had Edwards syndrome?

political analyst wrote: »

What about the distress that they're under now because of erroneous test results?

Taking choices away from people is not the answer. People don’t need obstacles put in their way to save them from themselves.

political analyst wrote: »

Why didn't doctors tell the couple that the third and final test would, unlike the first and second tests, be definitive about whether or not their baby had Edwards syndrome?

That’s the million dollar question.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

That's just your opinion, nothing more.

Well, it is surely a violation of nature. Abomination is a apt term.

Boggles

political analyst wrote: »

Why didn't doctors tell the couple that the third and final test would, unlike the first and second tests, be definitive about whether or not their baby had Edwards syndrome?

How do we know they didn't?

FishOnABike

political analyst wrote: »

If this case had arisen before the Eighth was repealed, it would have taken a bit longer for the mother to have an abortion because she would have had to go across the Irish Sea and then the result of the third test might have been available before she would have travelled.

It is also possible that knowing the delay that would be caused by by having to arrange for a termination abroad that people might feel under greater time pressure to make a decision sooner rather than wait for a third test.

People have to make very difficult decisions. I wouldn't add to their difficulty by judging them.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Taking choices away from people is not the answer. People don’t need obstacles put in their way to save them from themselves.

What if the choice is to be a maniac spree killer or rapist?

stefanovich wrote: »

So once your child is born you can kill it whenever because it is yours?

I never said that and you aren’t posting in good faith.
You are being dishonest and strawmanning.
Please quote where I said people should be allowed kill their born children or take back what you said, because I never even implied that, let alone said it.

Also you still haven’t answered my previous question, would you expect a 14 year old rape victim to carry her rapists baby?