Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

pinkyeye wrote: »

There was 2 weeks of stories and 95% at least were pre repeal (I will bet my months wages on this) . So again, your point is BS.

You'll ignore my "told you so" remark because you don't like the truth obviously.

Well you seemed to have listened to them all so I'll have to hand that point to u!!!!! However the 5% I listened to on the day I did tune in was not very complimentary of the service they received. If you separated the "repeal" from this you will see that prior to repeal and with the likes of "in her shoes" all problems issues in maternity hospitals were cited as an effect of the 8th. These stories are still coming out today. This has nothing to do with sayinf repeal is responsible for x, y or z its simply saying that the 8th is repealed and we still have issues that need to be addressed. These aren't being addessed despite assurances from Harris, aims and amnesty.

SusieBlue

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I think that if you look at the repeal campaign it was built on irish hospitals are unsafe, irish women are dying, irish doctors can't do their job under the constraints of the 8th. A quick search will confirm that. I think those questions would be better answered by those who felt so unsafe since 1983 yet used the maternity services here. I feel standards have and will drop and have stated that the money that Harris promised would go to improving patient safety in maternity hospitals has not come to fruition. While I feel that my concern (rational or not) is for and with my baby.

No I think the main point was that the LAW was unsafe and doctors felt unable to give the highest, most appropriate standard of care possible to women... which isn’t quite what you’re conflating at all.

Plumbthedepths

petalgumdrops wrote:

I think that if you look at the repeal campaign it was built on irish hospitals are unsafe, irish women are dying, irish doctors can't do their job under the constraints of the 8th. A quick search will confirm that. I think those questions would be better answered by those who felt so unsafe since 1983 yet used the maternity services here. I feel standards have and will drop and have stated that the money that Harris promised would go to improving patient safety in maternity hospitals has not come to fruition. While I feel that my concern (rational or not) is for and with my baby.

You are the one claiming standards have slipped, so I feel it's acceptable to ask you the question. So once again if the standards are so bad why are you willing to engage with Irish maternity services. It seems somewhat hypocritical to me.

SusieBlue wrote: »

No I think the main point was that the LAW was unsafe and doctors felt unable to give the highest, most appropriate standard of care possible to women... which isn’t quite what you’re conflating at all.

I don't agree with you there. But you are entitled to that opinion.

[Deleted User]

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I think that if you look at the repeal campaign it was built on irish hospitals are unsafe, irish women are dying, irish doctors can't do their job under the constraints of the 8th. A quick search will confirm that. I think those questions would be better answered by those who felt so unsafe since 1983 yet used the maternity services here. I feel standards have and will drop and have stated that the money that Harris promised would go to improving patient safety in maternity hospitals has not come to fruition. While I feel that my concern (rational or not) is for and with my baby.

You were unhappy with the service you received 7 years ago also, but from talking to colleagues in work who recently had their second child in three years they feel that the service has improved.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You are the one claiming standards have slipped, so I feel it's acceptable to ask you the question. So once again if the standards are so bad why are you willing to engage with Irish maternity services. It seems somewhat hypocritical to me.

Thats like questioning a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant as to why they engaged in sexual activity! Your scenario makes absolutely zero sense! Standards have slipped in our health service you would need to be living under a rock to not see the issues and waste of money in pur heath system? I think that validates a statement to be made.

Now on hypocrisy- Pisa reports have previously shown that standards in our schools have slipped but parents still send kids to school. Parents aren't religious but still allow their kids to do communicate/confirmation. Still use the church for baptisms, funerals . All very hypocritical but would you ask a bereaved person who previously stated they thought the church was no good why they were using it for a funeral? There is absolutely nothing productive in your question. Perhaps maybe you could ask how I think standards could be.improved rather than your blanket attempt to make my valid concerns based on my experiences and the very public information available in relation to our healthcare system appear to be hypocritical. I will have my baby in Ireland - the irony of your statement!!!! Hypocrisy is everywhere!!!

Caledonia

Wondering how sick the doctors involved feel to have terminated a healthy baby. Like there are always outcomes to treatments but actually taking a life - ...not allowed to conscientiously object so they could be against abortion themselves.

Plumbthedepths

petalgumdrops wrote:

Thats like questioning a woman who doesn't want to get pregnant as to why they engaged in sexual activity! Your scenario makes absolutely zero sense! Standards have slipped in our health service you would need to be living under a rock to not see the issues and waste of money in pur heath system? I think that validates a statement to be made.

If you don't want to answer a straight forward question best to be honest and say so.

petalgumdrops wrote:

Now on hypocrisy- Pisa reports have previously shown that standards in our schools have slipped but parents still send kids to school. Parents aren't religious but still allow their kids to do communicate/confirmation. Still use the church for baptisms, funerals . All very hypocritical but would you ask a bereaved person who previously stated they thought the church was no good why they were using it for a funeral? There is absolutely nothing productive in your question. Perhaps maybe you could ask how I think standards could be.improved rather than your blanket attempt to make my valid concerns based on my experiences and the very public information available in relation to our healthcare system appear to be hypocritical. I will have my baby in Ireland - the irony of your statement!!!! Hypocrisy is everywhere!!!

The above is nothing but whataboutery nonsense.
It's good to see you now feel Irish maternity services are sufficient for your needs, makes your comment about poor standards very strange though.

DubInMeath wrote: »

You were unhappy with the service you received 7 years ago also, but from talking to colleagues in work who recently had their second child in three years they feel that the service has improved.

I was unhappy yes because I was left on a unit in labour and almost had my baby in a wheelchair because the midwife didn't believe that I was in labour. My husband was sent home when I was clearly in labour and he missed the birth so yes I was unhappy but my baby was safe and hindsight has shown me that sometimes labour isn't always the lovely experience we hope it would be. I would take that experience 100 times over being induced last time because my child had a fall off in growth. Being so scared that the amnio I took might have been wrong and he would be born dead like I was told. So scared that I couldn't progress in labour at all. I had every intervention possible and still nothing. Crying on a bed for 2 days because even though I had been assured he was ok I didn't believe them and mostly feeling guilty that here I was in labour about to have a baby that months previously the thought had actually crossed my mind to terminate.

I do hope your friends in work are a sign that this time I'll have that great experience they had to. I do have to acknowledge that in 2.5 years I have not had a baby in a hospital in Ireland and so my perception may be outdated but I still stand by that standards need to brought up. Services extended and the.money that was promised is invested

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

If you don't want to answer a straight forward question best to be honest and say so.

The above is nothing but whataboutery nonsense.
It's good to see you now feel Irish maternity services are sufficient for your needs, makes your comment about poor standards very strange though.

Your opinion thankfully means very little to me. Please do transfer that thought to all those who claimed women were dying. It must have only been "pro life" people procreating from 1983 to 2019'

ToddyDoody

Is it really any of our business?

54&56 wrote: »

What an idiotic (I'm being kind) post.

What utter bollocks. The poster you replied to is spot on. The 8th Amendment was there to protect life such as this baby. Outside the womb it’s manslaughter at the very least.

SusieBlue

cournioni wrote: »

What utter bollocks. The poster you replied to is spot on. The 8th Amendment was there to protect life such as this baby. Outside the womb it’s manslaughter at the very least.

The 8th protected nothing, it exported our problems to foreign healthcare systems and ensured that the 10k abortions that WERE happening in our country every year were unsafe & unregulated with no aftercare.
The abortions happened anyway, just in secret & abroad.

SusieBlue wrote: »

The 8th protected nothing, it exported our problems to foreign healthcare systems and ensured that the 10k abortions that WERE happening in our country every year were unsafe & unregulated with no aftercare.
The abortions happened anyway, just in secret & abroad.

So we keep hearing. Doesn’t make it right.

cournioni wrote: »

So we keep hearing. Doesn’t make it right.

It’s not right that women get control over their own bodies?

Faugheen wrote: »

It’s not right that women get control over their own bodies?

Just their own?

nozzferrahhtoo

kaymin wrote: »

our understanding of the brain is fairly primitive so I wouldn't rely on a doctor / quack that concludes there's no sentience because s/he can't see / prove it.

Our knowledge is not complete, sure, but calling it "fairly primitive" is massively disingenuous. We understand a hell of a lot in fact. And there is nothing in our current understanding that even BEGINS to suggest sentience has come on line at 12 weeks.

To use an analogy.... if sentience is radio waves... then you are suggesting the radio waves might be there not just before the radio tower broadcasting them has been turned on..... but before it has even been built.

kaymin wrote: »

There's even views out there that sentience isn't present in newborns

Fringe science, hardly proven. But IF they prove it, you will find me sticking to my convictions and I would not longer have moral or ethical concern for new borns. But there is a lot of evidence, including in the links I provided you yesterday, to the contrary here.

But you are not negating my position, just strengthening it. There is no evidence AT ALL that sentience exists at 12-16 weeks when we actually do the abortions. That it might ALSO not exist later than that.... well thats not my problem then is it???

Further given it is a new born, and no longer part of a pregnancy, it also has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread. Which is about abortion. But yes if you are interested Peter Singer for example has talked about what moral and ethical concerns we should have for new borns. Though I disagree with him for a number of reasons, he at least attempts to argue his case further than "Oh look it is human shaped!".

nozzferrahhtoo

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I struggle massively with the removal of the right to life

As would I, if there was a coherent basis for affording it one in the first place. Thankfully, there is not. IF there was any argument coherently suggesting the fetus at 12-16 weeks should have a right to life, I would also be massively concerned with the removal of that right.

However given no one, least of all on this thread, has suggested an argument to that effect other than "it is human shaped!" I find I do not share your concerns as I can discern no reason why I should, or might.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

and the potential for mistakes to happen.

That is a legitimate concern, but of course not one that should cripple us from doing the right thing, writing the right laws, and offering the right choices.

Alas Medical Science is not perfect however and mistake WILL happen. Not might, not potential, they WILL happen. And not just with abortion. With everything. Do you think for example that no one has ever been treated for cancer.... and cancer treatments can be very harmful even lethal.... for a cancer it turned out later they did not even have??? Do you think no one has ever died from an adverse reaction to a vaccine?

We should be concerned with mistakes and failures and misdiagnosis and side effects. We should do EVERYTHING we can to minimise their occurrence at all, and their effects when they occur.

But occur they will. And only those with an agenda will twist that fact into an argument against the context. Such as, for this thread, abortion.

None of the above directed at you of course, just the thread as a whole.

petalgumdrops wrote: »

We never think something will go wrong do we?

I always assume it will actually. Thus leading me to seek a second opinion for all medical diagnosis of any actual import. I also trained to do the research myself to get a third opinion on the data and the papers. When someone recommends a drug or procedure to me, I can actually go and read and understand the studies on that recommendation. This should be school curriculum stuff to my mind.

Further when seeking a second opinion I do what almost no one I know ever does. I check the educational history of the doctors in question. Because to my mind seeking a second opinion from a doctor who trained in the same place as the first doctor.... means you are probably only getting ONE opinion.... that of the lecturer they shared in college. So I usually try to get my second opinions from a doctor from a different university or if possibly a completely different country.

nozzferrahhtoo

Caledonia wrote: »

Wondering how sick the doctors involved feel to have terminated a healthy baby.

They likely do it often, that is how CHOICE based abortion works. They probably do not feel great for the couple if they terminated based on bad information though. Doctors, at least all the ones I know or trained with or worked with, do genuinely take misdiagnosis to heart quite deeply.

Caledonia wrote: »

Like there are always outcomes to treatments but actually taking a life - ...not allowed to conscientiously object so they could be against abortion themselves.

I am open minded on the topic of conscientious objection only to a degree. I think when one has private practice I am a lot more open minded about it.

When one works for the state or someone else however..... I think they forfeit much of that. I have about as much sympathy for a doctor working for the state protesting a medical procedure as I do for a Muslim who gets a job in someone elses butcher and then starts to moan they do not want to have to handle pork.

That is to say, very little to none.

cournioni wrote: »

Just their own?

Yes.

Why is it any of your business what a woman decides to do?

judeboy101

Faugheen wrote: »

Yes.

Why is it any of your business what a woman decides to do?

Our state intervenes when women decide to have eating habits that society derm not to be the norm. Many women and men think anorexia is a choice yet our society can have them institutionalised and force fed. These are highly intelligent women in the main from well off backgrounds who have cogent arguments for choosing to do it , should we allow it to be "their choice , their body"?

judeboy101 wrote: »

Our state intervenes when women decide to have eating habits that society derm not to be the norm. Many women and men think anorexia is a choice yet our society can have them institutionalised and force fed. These are highly intelligent women in the main from well off backgrounds who have cogent arguments for choosing to do it , should we allow it to be "their choice , their body"?

Anorexia is a mental illness which could have serious consequences for someone's health.

It's not just women who suffer from anorexia either but you go on your spate of whataboutery there.

kaymin

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Our knowledge is not complete, sure, but calling it "fairly primitive" is massively disingenuous. We understand a hell of a lot in fact. And there is nothing in our current understanding that even BEGINS to suggest sentience has come on line at 12 weeks.

To use an analogy.... if sentience is radio waves... then you are suggesting the radio waves might be there not just before the radio tower broadcasting them has been turned on..... but before it has even been built.

Fringe science, hardly proven. But IF they prove it, you will find me sticking to my convictions and I would not longer have moral or ethical concern for new borns. But there is a lot of evidence, including in the links I provided you yesterday, to the contrary here.

But you are not negating my position, just strengthening it. There is no evidence AT ALL that sentience exists at 12-16 weeks when we actually do the abortions. That it might ALSO not exist later than that.... well thats not my problem then is it???

Further given it is a new born, and no longer part of a pregnancy, it also has NOTHING to do with the topic of this thread. Which is about abortion. But yes if you are interested Peter Singer for example has talked about what moral and ethical concerns we should have for new borns. Though I disagree with him for a number of reasons, he at least attempts to argue his case further than "Oh look it is human shaped!".

My point is that this sentience argument is very flawed / weak. As you admit yourself, you would have no problem killing a newborn if the views of certain scientists about sentience are to be believed. I find this quite disturbing.

Despite what you say about our knowledge of the brain, most knowledgeable people admit it is primitive in comparison to the brain's capability. After all, if we knew so much why haven't we come up with cures for Alzheimer’s, vascular dementia, Dewy body dementia, Parkinsonism, epilepsy and other seizure disorders, multiple sclerosis, brain cancers, mood disorders or psychoses.

Faugheen wrote: »

Yes.

Why is it any of your business what a woman decides to do?

Doesn’t matter a toss if it’s a woman or a man. Killing shouldn’t be a choice, regardless of its location.