Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

Options
1…3233353738…55

Comments

  • Options
    #1022
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    In Ireland you can abort an unborn with FFA at any stage. So why the rush?

    That is a very general question about a whole rainbow of situations that a couple or a woman could be in, so I doubt you can get one single coherent answer to it.

    However there are general answers one could give to a general question such as that.

    For example there are genuine psychological issues with continuing to harbour a pregnancy that is believed to be going nowhere. Up to and including a person becoming more and more emotionally invested in it as time goes on, the options of medical or surgical abortion being more limited later in the pregnancy, or complications in the pregnancy going awry causing further medical issues for the woman, and simply dealing with the grief of the failed pregnancy in a timely manner and so just wanting it to be over with as soon as possible rather than endure it for weeks more before healing can begin.

    Further though if you look at graphs of complications, even death, that occur as a result of abortion there is one clear trend. The quantity AND severity of potential complications, even death, goes up as the pregnancy progresses. Even from 2% at eight to twelve weeks it can jump 300% to 6% at twelve to thirteen weeks. And in the second trimester it can go up to 50%.

    In the United States, mortality rates per 100,000 abortions are as follows: fewer than 8 weeks - 0.5%; 11-12 weeks - 2%; 16-20 weeks - 14%; and more than 21 weeks - 18%. Though thankfully in the United States, mortality from septic abortion rapidly declined after the legalization of abortions

    "Curiously, one study reports that women aged 30–39 years were more likely to have a complication after an abortion compared with women ages 20–24 years" so seemingly the older you are the more you might feel compelled to have an abortion sooner rather than later.
    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    as a society we agreed in the referendum they should be protected from 12 weeks onwards.

    Nope not accurate. As a society we agreed by referendum to remove the 8th from the constitution. That is all. No more. No less.

    The "12 weeks" stuff is legislation after the referendum and was not at all voted on by us in any way other than we voted for the elective representatives that worked on that legislation.

    "This replaced the Eighth Amendment, which had given the life of the unborn foetus the same value as that of its mother, with a clause permitting the Oireachtas to legislate for the termination of pregnancies."

    Now we COULD claim that we knew what we were getting so essentially that was what we were voting for even if it was not ACTUALLY what we were voting for. But that would not be accurate as I know plenty of people who did not agree with the proposed legislation and STILL voted to remove the 8th because they believed removal of the 8th the right thing to do and fighting the legislation issue a separate battle.


  • Options
    #1023
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Nope not accurate. As a society we agreed by referendum to remove the 8th from the constitution. That is all. No more. No less.

    The "12 weeks" stuff is legislation after the referendum and was not at all voted on by us in any way other than we voted for the elective representatives that worked on that legislation.

    "This replaced the Eighth Amendment, which had given the life of the unborn foetus the same value as that of its mother, with a clause permitting the Oireachtas to legislate for the termination of pregnancies."

    Now we COULD claim that we knew what we were getting so essentially that was what we were voting for even if it was not ACTUALLY what we were voting for. But that would not be accurate as I know plenty of people who did not agree with the proposed legislation and STILL voted to remove the 8th because they believed removal of the 8th the right thing to do and fighting the legislation issue a separate battle.

    The 12 week limit was well flagged prior to the referendum. That was what the Citizens Assembly proposed and the politicians from all major political parties accepted. So 12 weeks was always going to be the limit and was well advertised before, during and after the referendum. It was never going to be anything but 12 weeks.


  • Options
    #1024
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    The 12 week limit was well flagged prior to the referendum. That was what the Citizens Assembly proposed and the politicians from all major political parties accepted. So 12 weeks was always going to be the limit and was well advertised before, during and after the referendum.

    I already pre-empted this reply in my last paragraph but since you decided to make it anyway I will just repeat my answer which is simply that:

    While we might have known what we were likely to get in the legislation were we to repeal the 8th, it is still majorly inaccurate to claim that is what we actually voted on. It is not, was not, and never will be what we were asked to vote on.

    Further to insist on making that error papers over the very real concerns of the very real subsection of people who A) Voted to repeal and B) disagree with the legislation that was proposed.


  • Options
    #1025
    gctest50
    Registered Users Posts: 9,605 ✭✭✭gctest50


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    The 12 week limit was well flagged prior to the referendum. That was what the Citizens Assembly proposed and the politicians from all major political parties accepted. So 12 weeks was always going to be the limit and was well advertised before, during and after the referendum. It was never going to be anything but 12 weeks.



    This probably would not have happened if the limit here was 20 /24 weeks


  • Options
    #1026
    AulWan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭AulWan


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    If they do that, the have no sympathy because they are risking aborting a perfectly healthy baby

    I wouldn't expect any, not from those who have shown yet again that their only consideration in this scenario is for the fetus.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1027
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    I already pre-empted this reply in my last paragraph but since you decided to make it anyway I will just repeat my answer which is simply that:

    While we might have known what we were likely to get in the legislation were we to repeal the 8th, it is still majorly inaccurate to claim that is what we actually voted on. It is not, was not, and never will be what we were asked to vote on.

    Further to insist on making that error papers over the very real concerns of the very real subsection of people who A) Voted to repeal and B) disagree with the legislation that was proposed.

    I don't like hair splitting as much as the next person, but..
    The 12 week limit was what was agreed by:
    1. The Citizens Assembly which was a microcosm of Irish Society (not possible to put everyone in Ireland into the one room).
    2. Received the backing of the majority in a referendum. People voted for or against based on this limit. If it was a 6 week limit, more may have voted for, if it was for example a 20 week limit, people might have voted differently. People voted based on a well advertised 12 week limit.
    3. Politicians from across the board in the elected Dail and Seanad supported the 12 week limit in legislation.

    I don't think you can get more of a consensus or agreement than that. This wasn't one person or a dictator imposing a 12 week limit, it came initially from the Citizens Assembly, was part of a referendum campaign which gained a majority and was put into law by legislators representing constituents. By any standard that is the agreement of society and anything else is hair splitting.


  • Options
    #1028
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    AulWan wrote: »
    I wouldn't expect any, not from those who have shown yet again that their only consideration in this scenario is for the fetus.

    And I wouldn't expect any consideration from those (aka you) who have no concern for any foetus even a healthy one over 12 weeks.

    See I can sling mud just as well as you.


  • Options
    #1029
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    gctest50 wrote: »
    This probably would not have happened if the limit here was 20 /24 weeks

    What probably wouldn't have happened?


  • Options
    #1030
    Mrsmum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Mrsmum


    AulWan wrote: »
    I wouldn't expect any, not from those who have shown yet again that their only consideration in this scenario is for the fetus.

    I don't understand your position here. Of course it would be very stressful to wait for results to come back but that's as nothing compared with finding out you aborted a healthy baby that you wanted because you couldn't bear to wait. We're supposed to be all grown up, what kind of childish logic is that. If doctors find a lump in my breast, am I going to say I can't bear the worry, whip it off before the conclusive biopsy. Who would do that. In this case as in all these cases the foetus is silent now, it's the parents that are not happy so how can you say people are making this all about the foetus. The parents are the ones left with the horror of this.


  • Options
    #1031
    AulWan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭AulWan


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    And I wouldn't expect any consideration from those (aka you) who have no concern for any foetus even a healthy one over 12 weeks.

    See I can sling mud just as well as you.

    The fetus-in-utero is not sentient and suffering, unlike the woman who is carrying it.

    Fast editing, by the way.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1032
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    I don't like hair splitting as much as the next person, but.. The 12 week limit was what was agreed by

    None of which changes the fact that it is STILL wrong to claim that is what we voted on. We did not. We voted on one thing and one thing only, a change to the constitution.

    Everything else, including the 12 weeks, was not part of the vote. To claim otherwise is simply wrong. This is not "splitting hairs". One is true. The other is false. One is historically accurate. The other is merely making stuff up.
    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    And I wouldn't expect any consideration from those (aka you) who have no concern for any foetus even a healthy one over 12 weeks.

    IF you could come up with reasoning as to why I should have concern for a fetus at 12 weeks, I would have some concern for a fetus at 12 weeks.

    You have not done this. But no one else has either, so I am not singling you out here.


  • Options
    #1033
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    AulWan wrote: »
    The fetus-in-utero is not sentient and suffering, unlike the woman who is carrying it.

    Fast editing, by the way.

    Where have I said abortions under 12 weeks or abortions over 12 weeks for FFA or health of the mother reasons shouldn't be allowed?

    If you followed this specific case, the foetus turned out to be perfectly healthy and if they had waited a couple more weeks they would have discovered this.

    I've every sympathy for parents in FFA situations and totally agree they should abort when they have all the information at hand. I disagree they should abort before all the tests come in. We have seen the flaws in the process in this case and potentially other cases.

    So stop saying I only support the foetus in all cases, that's a complete lie.


  • Options
    #1034
    AulWan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭AulWan


    Mrsmum wrote: »
    I don't understand your position here. Of course it would be very stressful to wait for results to come back but that's as nothing compared with finding out you aborted a healthy baby that you wanted because you couldn't bear to wait. We're supposed to be all grown up, what kind of childish logic is that. If doctors find a lump in my breast, am I going to say I can't bear the worry, whip it off before the conclusive biopsy. Who would do that. In this case as in all these cases the foetus is silent now, it's the parents that are not happy so how can you say people are making this all about the foetus. The parents are the ones left with the horror of this.

    My logic is not complicated. To use your analogy, if I was told I had a lump in my breast that my Doctors were 99% sure was cancerous, then yes, I would tell them to whip it off.

    I wouldn't be holding out for another couple of weeks in which the cancer could grow on the 1% chance that the test was wrong.

    A 99% positive result is conclusive, as far as i'm concerned.


  • Options
    #1035
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    None of which changes the fact that it is STILL wrong to claim that is what we voted on. We did not. We voted on one thing and one thing only, a change to the constitution.

    Everything else, including the 12 weeks, was not part of the vote. To claim otherwise is simply wrong. This is not "splitting hairs". One is true. The other is false. One is historically accurate. The other is merely making stuff up.



    IF you could come up with reasoning as to why I should have concern for a fetus at 12 weeks, I would have some concern for a fetus at 12 weeks.

    You have not done this. But no one else has either, so I am not singling you out here.

    So you had no idea that 12 weeks was going to be the limit as set out by the Citizens Assembly and as argued for by all the prominent Pro Appeal representatives during the referendum campaign? If not then you mustn't have followed the campaign closely. Most people knew what they were voting for, the removal of the 8th, replaced by legislation which allowed abortion up to 12 weeks.

    Its not for me to come up with reasoning why you should have concern for anything. Its up to you. I don't particularly care if you have concern for a foetus at any gestational age. As I said before everything is subjective, but the majority through CA, referendum and Legislation fixed on 12 weeks as the limit. Democracy in action.


  • Options
    #1036
    AulWan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭AulWan


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    I've every sympathy for parents in FFA situations and totally agree they should abort when they have all the information at hand.

    Not that I have seen. You have posted that in your opinion termination for FFA should not be signed off on without an amniocentesis, which would mean some parents living in limbo until at the earliest 18 weeks for those results to come back.

    In my opinion, that's cruel, and if they decide they want to go ahead and end the pregnancy earlier on the basis of a 99% positive CVS test result, then they have nothing to be judged for. But according to you, if that's their decision, they deserve no sympathy.


  • Options
    #1037
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    So you had no idea that 12 weeks was going to be the limit as set out by the Citizens Assembly

    That is not only not what I have been saying to you in the previous posts, it is the exact opposite of what I have been saying to you in the previous posts. You are not engaging in this discussion in good faith at all.
    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    Most people knew what they were voting for, the removal of the 8th, replaced by legislation which allowed abortion up to 12 weeks.

    "Most people" I think knew both of those things AND the distinction between them in that they knew A) What they were voting on B) What the likely consequence of that vote would be and C) The distinction between those two things.

    That you are conflating them says something only about you, not "most people" and as I said more than once now I am aware of people who voted to remove the 8th not because of what would likely happen next but DESPITE it.... in that they thought removal of the 8th was the right thing to do DESPITE disagreeing strongly with the proposed legislation.

    We voted on one thing and one thing only, regardless of what you might want to pretend.
    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    Its not for me to come up with reasoning why you should have concern for anything. Its up to you.

    So you can't do it either, basically.

    But no I do not think "everything" is subjective. But even where things are, that does not make everything equally subjective by any stretch, which is worth noting also. Some things are ENTIRELY subjective and arbitrary while other things are strongly constrained and based on arguments, evidence, data and reasoning. That distinction is lost if we merely hand wave it all away as "everything is subjective".

    Having moral and ethical concern for a 12-16 week fetus for example appears to be ENTIRELY subjective and arbitrary.


  • Options
    #1038
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    AulWan wrote: »
    My logic is not complicated. To use your analogy, if I was told I had a lump in my breast that my Doctors were 99% sure was cancerous, then yes, I would tell them to whip it off.

    I wouldn't be holding out for another couple of weeks in which the cancer could grow on the 1% chance that the test was wrong.

    A 99% positive result is conclusive, as far as i'm concerned.

    And what if they told you after you had whipped off the breast they made a mistake and there was another even more accurate test they forgot to tell you about? Would you say "ah sure these things happen" or would you consider pursuing legal action?


  • Options
    #1039
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,016 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    And what if they told you after you had whipped off the breast that they made a mistake and there was another even more accurate test they forgot to tell you about?

    None of that would justify a generalised ban on mastectomies though.


  • Options
    #1040
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    That is not only not what I have been saying to you in the previous posts, it is the exact opposite of what I have been saying to you in the previous posts. You are not engaging in this discussion in good faith at all.



    "Most people" I think knew both of those things AND the distinction between them in that they knew A) What they were voting on B) What the likely consequence of that vote would be and C) The distinction between those two things.

    That you are conflating them says something only about you, not "most people" and as I said more than once now I am aware of people who voted to remove the 8th not because of what would likely happen next but DESPITE it.... in that they thought removal of the 8th was the right thing to do DESPITE disagreeing strongly with the proposed legislation.

    We voted on one thing and one thing only, regardless of what you might want to pretend.



    So you can't do it either, basically.

    But no I do not think "everything" is subjective. But even where things are, that does not make everything equally subjective by any stretch, which is worth noting also. Some things are ENTIRELY subjective and arbitrary while other things are strongly constrained and based on arguments, evidence, data and reasoning. That distinction is lost if we merely hand wave it all away as "everything is subjective".

    Having moral and ethical concern for a 12-16 week fetus for example appears to be ENTIRELY subjective and arbitrary    .

    No difference of opinion there. But society through democracy has set on 12 weeks as the limit.

    12 weeks is the limit. I don't particularly care if you agree with it or not. Its factually the legal limit.


  • Options
    #1041
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    volchitsa wrote: »
    None of that would justify a generalised ban on mastectomies though.

    And who exactly is arguing for that?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1042
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    No difference of opinion there. But society through democracy has set on 12 weeks as the limit.

    Sure I already said that myself. But the only democracy that was involved was that we elected the people who wrote that legislation. We did not vote for 12 weeks however. We only voted to remove the 8th. No more. No less.
    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    12 weeks is the limit. I don't particularly care if you agree with it or not. Its factually the legal limit.

    I am happy with it. I would be equally happy with 16 weeks however. Maybe a tiny bit more so. I would not seek 20 weeks, but I would be in NO way actively unhappy with it were it to come about. I see no reason to be.

    But 12 weeks facilitates well over 90% of the people who seek choice based abortion so I am entirely satisfied with that result.

    My spell checked tried to change that to sissified, which for some reason amuses me deeply.


  • Options
    #1043
    AulWan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭AulWan


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    And what if they told you after you had whipped off the breast they made a mistake and there was another even more accurate test they forgot to tell you about? Would you say "ah sure these things happen" or would you consider pursuing legal action?

    Me personally, no I don't think I would consider it. I'd just be glad I was cancer free.

    We'll have to wait until there is an official inquiry to find out the circumstances of what these parents were told exactly.

    But according to the ladies on the thread who have posted about being in this exact situation, it's doubtful they weren't told about it.


  • Options
    #1044
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    AulWan wrote: »
    Me personally, no I don't think I would consider it. I'd just be glad I was cancer free.

    We'll have to wait until there is an official inquiry to find out the circumstances of what these parents were told exactly.

    But according to the ladies on the thread who have posted about being in this exact situation, it's doubtful they weren't told about it.

    We will have to wait for the enquiry.

    Let's hope its not Cervical Check 2.0. Ie Abortion of potentially non FFA foetuses based on inconclusive information. The question now are there other cases.


  • Options
    #1045
    Mrsmum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Mrsmum


    AulWan wrote: »
    My logic is not complicated. To use your analogy, if I was told I had a lump in my breast that my Doctors were 99% sure was cancerous, then yes, I would tell them to whip it off.

    I wouldn't be holding out for another couple of weeks in which the cancer could grow on the 1% chance that the test was wrong.

    A 99% positive result is conclusive, as far as i'm concerned.

    Well I wouldn't, not if I knew another test was out there waiting to come back. What's the point of the double test otherwise. But in your case, that would be your choice and you would then have to live with that. You couldn't have it both ways, refusing to wait and then saying what happened shouldn't have happened. How would it not happen in some cases ?
    Btw not saying that is the case with these parents. Just following your logic.


  • Options
    #1046
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    ToBeFrank123 wrote: »
    We will have to wait for the enquiry.

    Let's hope its not Cervical Check 2.0. Ie Abortion of potentially non FFA foetuses based on inconclusive information. The question now are there other cases.

    Well thats a bit naive I think.

    There are ALWAYS going to be cases where misinformation or lack of information leads people to make a choice that they might not have made if they had known more. And no medical test is 100% absolute.

    So yes, there are other cases, there will be more other cases.


  • Options
    #1047
    political analyst
    Registered Users Posts: 4,447 ✭✭✭political analyst


    From May last year:

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/i-felt-abandoned-by-this-country-mother-who-had-termination-in-uk-36892200.html

    Vicky Wall, a 41-year-old anti-abortion activist campaigning in Nenagh, Co Tipperary, said a doctor brought up the option of abortion when her unborn baby was diagnosed with Edwards' syndrome, a genetic disorder.

    "What the doctor actually said was 'you can pop to England', which was horrific," she said.

    She carried the baby to full term instead. "My baby was born at 32 weeks, then she died. I got to take her home, spend time with her," she said.

    Doesn't what that doctor said to Vicky Wall indicate an indecently enthusiastic attitude to abortion in the medical profession, i.e. putting pressure of women with pregnancies that are believed to have FFA to have their pregnancies terminated?


  • Options
    #1048
    AulWan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,653 ✭✭✭AulWan


    Mrsmum wrote: »
    Well I wouldn't, not if I knew another test was out there waiting to come back.

    That would be your choice, which you are perfectly entitled to.
    Mrsmum wrote: »
    What's the point of the double test otherwise. But in your case, that would be your choice and you would then have to live with that.

    And as I have already indicated, I would live with it, because yes, it was my choice.
    Mrsmum wrote: »
    You couldn't have it both ways, refusing to wait and then saying what happened shouldn't have happened.

    See above.

    For many people, (not saying all) a 99% positive result from CVS would be a conclusive enough positive for them to make their decision on. They are not doing anything wrong for this.

    I don't agree that a termination for FFA should be conditional on waiting until 18 weeks for the results of an amniocentesis test, before being allowed to end the pregnancy, as has been suggested. Its as simple as that.


  • Options
    #1049
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 12,978 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    political analyst wrote: »
    From May last year:






    Doesn't what that doctor said to Vicky Wall indicate an indecently enthusiastic attitude to abortion in the medical profession, i.e. putting pressure of women with pregnancies that are believed to have FFA to have their pregnancies terminated?

    If you're sheep enough to believe her. Pro-life are 'economical with the truth' to quote a poster here from last year.

    And how heartless of her to inflict that pain on the child. Awful person, typical pro-life activist though, all about the fetus and themselves.


  • Options
    #1050
    ToBeFrank123
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 2,176 ✭✭✭ToBeFrank123


    Igotadose wrote: »
    If you're sheep enough to believe her. Pro-life are 'economical with the truth' to quote a poster here from last year.

    And how heartless of her to inflict that pain on the child. Awful person, typical pro-life activist though, all about the fetus and themselves.

    I see no issue with the doctors advice. Parents of FFA need to be given all the options. And they also need to be given all the information about testing to avoid what just happened.

    Safe and competent abortions is what most people are asking for. Unsafe and incompetent abortions serve no-one, I think everyone can agree on that at least.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1051
    Mrsmum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Mrsmum


    Igotadose wrote: »
    If you're sheep enough to believe her. Pro-life are 'economical with the truth' to quote a poster here from last year.

    And how heartless of her to inflict that pain on the child. Awful person, typical pro-life activist though, all about the fetus and themselves.


    Hmmm, it isn't Vicky Wall that these parents are accusing of being economical with the truth.

    Your other comment says more about you than anyone and in case there's a doubt that's not a compliment.


Advertisement