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

Legalise abortion

1303133353640

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    robp wrote: »
    Treatment which happens to kill the child is not comparable to a true abortion. The death of the child is a regrettable side effect that it all. It should never be referred to as termination or abortion IMO as it considerable muddies the waters of the debate.

    You can use whatever terminology you like but the medical terminology for such a situation is abortion. I see your point though; you dont want to 'confuse' 'abortion by choice' with abortion for 'medical reasons'. It is a fair point. Personally I think you cannnot properly and honestly consider one without considering, understanding and challenging your views on the other.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Don't know - I am all for equality

    Then you would agree that the father should have equal rights over the child - both before and after birth.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    drkpower wrote: »
    Yes; which is why psychiatrists train for years so that they may be qualified to do as well as anyone can do. I am willing to trust the view of one/two of them, whatever is appropriate.

    As for the 'best evidence' point, you are speaking in generalities again. You need to deal with each woman individually.


    That is simply incorrect. Not everyone who is suicidal is 'clinically depressed'; indeed not everyone who has committed suicide is suffering from psychiatric illness of any kind; some people have committted suicide solely as a consequence of what they considered to be intolerable circumstances. But, as I said, if the view of the psychiatrist(s) was that the woman was likely to be at the same/more risk post-abortion, I certainly would not advocate it.

    And I agree, we need to be 'careful'; you are aware though, that abortion on the 'threat' of suicide is entirely legal in this country already.

    In the case of best evidence and how medical research works I feel we must agreed to disagree.

    As for the current legal status in this country I am full aware of it. I do not agree with it but then there is much in this country that is legal that I disagree with.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    In the case of best evidence and how medical research works I feel we must agreed to disagree.
    I dont disagree with your position on best evidence or medical research; I am saying that it does not help an individual woman in an individual situation. They should be dealt with....eh..individually.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    drkpower wrote: »

    A pregnant woman has endometrial cancer; without treatment, her own chances of survival following delivery are 20%. With treatment (which will kill the child), her chances of survival are 60%.

    Do you advocate termination in order to institute treatment?

    Treatment is usually instituted without termination as to do otherwise can introduce complications. There is never a case where an an abortion is prescribed before any life saving treatment is administered.

    The treatment itself can and usually does cause the pregnancy to fail and the baby dies unless the pregnancy has progressed to the point where there is a chance of the child surviving outside of the womb.

    It is not reasonable to associate induced abortion with cancer treatment. Just wanted to clear that up as there aren't any medical cases requiring aggressive treatment that are facilitated by induced abortions of any kind.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    drkpower wrote: »
    I dont disagree with your position on best evidence or medical research; I am saying that it does not help an individual woman in an individual situation. They should be dealt with....eh..individually.

    That is true however medicine is never a static science and a good doctor should be guided by the best available knowledge.

    In the light of the evidence I have already presented I fail to see how an abortion is going to improve the situation as it is not the pregnancy that causes suicidal thoughts but the concept of being pregnant and the effect the patient perceives this has on her life. Psychiatric care and treatment would be better than the trauma of an abortion clinic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Treatment is usually instituted without termination as to do otherwise can introduce complications. There is never a case where an an abortion is prescribed before any life saving treatment is administered..

    Im not sure you are referring to Ireland or elsewhere. But in any case, one of the treatments for endometrial (or cervical cancer) is surgery, which necessarily leads to a termination. There are other potential treatments but, in many cases, particularly with cervical, proceeding without early surgery is associated with poorer outcomes.
    It is not reasonable to associate induced abortion with cancer treatment. Just wanted to clear that up as there aren't any medical cases requiring aggressive treatment that are facilitated by induced abortions of any kind.

    The aggressive treatment IS termination, in many cases, from endometrial and cervical cancer to pre-eclampsia, and many others.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    That is true however medicine is never a static science and a good doctor should be guided by the best available knowledge.

    In the light of the evidence I have already presented I fail to see how an abortion is going to improve the situation as it is not the pregnancy that causes suicidal thoughts but the concept of being pregnant and the effect the patient perceives this has on her life. Psychiatric care and treatment would be better than the trauma of an abortion clinic.

    And again, the evidence you have provided is of a general nature. There are individual cases which do not fit in with the generalities. Psychiatric care and treatment is, of course, the optimal. But if a psychiatrist (or two or three) are of the view that a pregnant woman is at a genuine risk of suicide, that it will not be improved substantially by psychiatric treatment and will be resolved/abated by termination, I would favour that being alllowed. Would you? Or do you claim that there is no pregnant woman anywhere whos suicidality would not be resolved/improved following a termination?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    drkpower wrote: »
    Im not sure you are referring to Ireland or elsewhere. But in any case, one of the treatments for endometrial (or cervical cancer) is surgery, which necessarily leads to a termination. There are other potential treatments but, in many cases, particularly with cervical, proceeding without early surgery is associated with poorer outcomes.



    The aggressive treatment IS termination, in many cases, from endometrial and cervical cancer to pre-eclampsia, and many others.

    That is a misrepresentation. While the treatment may cause the death of a child in the womb that is not the primary objective. The primary purpose is to treat the disease.

    Can you name any disease where a direct induced abortion is the only known or required treatment?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    drkpower wrote: »
    And again, the evidence you have provided is of a general nature. There are individual cases which do not fit in with the generalities. Psychiatric care and treatment is, of course, the optimal. But if a psychiatrist (or two or three) are of the view that a pregnant woman is at a genuine risk of suicide, that it will not be improved substantially by psychiatric treatment and will be resolved/abated by termination, I would favour that being alllowed. Would you? Or do you claim that there is no pregnant woman anywhere whos suicidality would not be resolved/improved following a termination?

    The latter. The risks for the future health of the patient greatly outweigh any potential initial improvement. This usual proves to be temporary and increases the risk of a later depressive episodes potential leading to a successful suicide.

    While every threat of suicide is serious it must be treated seriously and especially if proved to be due to a clinical cause rather than it being a form of emotional blackmail or an irrational reaction to the pregnancy abortion is not recommended as the risk benefit analysis would not be in the patients favour.

    We also know that pregnant women are less likely to suicide when compared with the non-pregnant female population.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1516167/pdf/califmed00072-0012.pdf

    We have enough suicides in Ireland already, many of which are probably due to facilities available in the UK. Do we really want to increase our suicide rate?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 270 ✭✭GarlicBread


    Its sad that irish women have to go abroad for abortions. I bet everytime that staff in foreign abortion clinics see irish people come in they think of how much an awful ****hole our country is for discriminating against half the population. We should be kicked out of europe until we stop abusing womens rights. We are almost on par with afganistan, shameful.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    We are almost on par with afganistan, shameful.
    Really? :confused:


    I'm betting by "almost" you actually mean "not at all".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    drkpower wrote: »
    ou may have missed this one, Nozz - Ill give you another go.

    I fail to see how the sentence you quoted from me is not already an answer to the question you quoted from yourself. Sorry. Any answer I now give will merely be me just repeating myself.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Would you eat in that restaurant again?

    I am sorry, but I honestly can not see the relevance of my personal eating preferences (which are essentially none of your business aside from being irrelevant) and the type of flesh I prefer the flavour of has a single bearing on the morality of human abortion. I need help here.

    If you are asking me if I see any moral difference between eating adult cow, calf, or cow fetus, I am afraid I do not.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Its sad that irish women have to go abroad for abortions. I bet everytime that staff in foreign abortion clinics see irish people come in they think of how much an awful ****hole our country is for discriminating against half the population. We should be kicked out of europe until we stop abusing womens rights. We are almost on par with afganistan, shameful.

    It is even sadder that some people think abortion is good or morally acceptable and that only some human lives can be protected and that other humans can be legally deprived of life.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,549 ✭✭✭Noffles


    As usual, lets tell women what they can and can't do... ****ing catholics...!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,382 ✭✭✭Motley Crue


    SLUSK wrote: »
    Abortions should be legalised in Ireland. In the long run it will help bring crime down because potential criminals will not be born. It is a well known fact that poor people commit more crimes, they also have more kids out of wedlock and so on. If these women can have abortions instead it would be good for all of us.

    Your argument against abortion is lost, if your theory is correct, it assumes people who have no money feel the need to steal and become criminals, that no one can better themselves

    This is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    drkpower wrote: »
    I am in favour of assessing each individual on their merits and acting accordingly; if the professional assessment is that abortion will substantially reduce their risk of suicide (and there is no other reasonable way of so doing), I would be in favour of it - if not, or if the assessment is that she is likely to be at an increased risk of suicide post-abortion, I would not be in favour.

    What if a woman presents saying the continued existence of her husband will lead to a suicide. Should we then terminate her husband?

    Clearly the right to life of an individual is NOT altered in relation to the threats a separate individual is making on their own life, so why is it that this is altered when the former individual is a foetus?

    I have to plead ignorant on this, but I do not know what current procedure is in a suicide risk patient. Do we incarcerate them until treatment can be applied? Do we treat and then send them home and hope for the best? Or do we just send them home and do nothing?

    Whatever it is, assuming someone can enlighten me on it, I then have to ask why can we not do the EXACT same in case of a pregnant woman? If we incarcerate and treat all other suicide risks, for example, why can we not do the same with the pregnant woman… treat her, observe her, protect the baby, and then after birth treat both patients?

    I am not trying to get at you here, but I just do not see what changes between a pregnant suicide risk and a normal suicide risk that in one case alters another’s right to life, but in all other cases does not. I am floundering to see the rationale here and need help.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    I am sorry, but I honestly can not see the relevance of my personal eating preferences (which are essentially none of your business aside from being irrelevant) and the type of flesh I prefer the flavour of has a single bearing on the morality of human abortion. I need help here.

    If you are asking me if I see any moral difference between eating adult cow, calf, or cow fetus, I am afraid I do not.

    Your question was asking what is the moral difference between a cow and a human.

    I'll let you tell me what you think it is so I can understand what you really meant by the question.
    You will also need to define what you mean by "moral, and "cow" and "human".

    If your question is solely in regards to the abortion of humans then it is morally wrong as the deliberate taking of any human life for the sole purpose of destroying that human is wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    That is a misrepresentation. While the treatment may cause the death of a child in the womb that is not the primary objective. The primary purpose is to treat the disease.

    Oh; you are talking about 'double effect' - a Catholic nonsense. It is a ridiculous concept and is entirely discredited in medical ethics.

    But in any case, the primary objective of the treatment in, for instance, pre-eclampsia is to remove the foetus. It is the foetus - or more accurately, its effect on maternal physiology - which is causing the problem.
    Can you name any disease where a direct induced abortion is the only known or required treatment?

    Medicine should be practiced on the basis of the most effective treatment, not on the basis of whether there is a less effective other treatment available. Termination of pregnancy is, in many cases, the most effective treatment for pre-eclampsia, eclampsia & HELLP syndrome, endometrial and cervical cancer and some other conditions. In some cases of eclampsia & HELLP syndrome, it is the only treatment that will suffice.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    I am not trying to get at you here, but I just do not see what changes between a pregnant suicide risk and a normal suicide risk that in one case alters another’s right to life, but in all other cases does not. I am floundering to see the rationale here and need help.

    You need help alright; particularly if you cannot see the difference between the husband-wife relationship and the materno-fetal one. And no, management of suicidality doesnt involve 'incarceration' in most cases, although it could in some.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    The latter. The risks for the future health of the patient greatly outweigh any potential initial improvement. This usual proves to be temporary and increases the risk of a later depressive episodes potential leading to a successful suicide.

    Your view is that there is and could never be a pregnant woman anywhere whose suicidality would not be resolved/improved following a termination?

    Fair enough; I think we can put this one to bed now - obviously you are wrong, but Im sure that wont stop you holding that position! Funny that the only case ever before the Supreme Court in which this issue arose, they accepted the evidence that it would. Anyway we can move on from this one - I know where you stand on it....:D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 387 ✭✭jmbkay


    If my young teenage daughter got pregnant, I would take her to England for an abortion, if I knew early enough. I had a baby at 16 and regret not having one. Its fine to be moral and ethical etc., but if it happened to your teenage daughter, what would you do?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    drkpower wrote: »
    I see your point though; you dont want to 'confuse' 'abortion by choice' with abortion for 'medical reasons'. It is a fair point. Personally I think you cannnot properly and honestly consider one without considering, understanding and challenging your views on the other.

    The user does have a good point though, one which I am surprised I forgot to make.

    There moral arguments between killing someone and saving something in such a way that will kill someone are distinct and clear. They are also one of the greyest areas of human morality we know of.

    Many tests have been done on this. Many people have been studied on their opinions of flicking a switch to save one person if it will kill another (the old train is about to hit one person for sure, do you flick a switch that will change its track and only possibly kill another person seems to be the one that is closest to what you are asking here about treatment that may cause the baby to die).

    A lot of people struggle with this. They baulk at being the one that has committed an act that will kill one person rather than do nothing and kill one person. Many people in such studies prefer to do nothing. Many prefer to take action now and attempt to save the latter soul later. I would be one of those.

    As I said before, after a certain point I consider them two equal beings. No different to how I consider man and wife, brother and sister, you and I two equal beings. Where possible the equality of those being has to be protected in my view. However in saying that I also have to concede that we can all come up with fantasy situations where in ANY pair of beings (not limiting this to mother and foetus) there will be a time when one unavoidably has to usurp the other.

    Where that line has to be drawn, and what % of risk one must be under before the other is forfeit, I have to admit I honestly do not know. It is a conundrum I clearly have to invest more time in and I will not myself venture an answer to it willy nilly without doing so. It is a conversation worth having.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    I fail to see how the sentence you quoted from me is not already an answer to the question you quoted from yourself. Sorry. Any answer I now give will merely be me just repeating myself.

    Nozz; you still wont answer a the question and you try and slip your way out of it by claiming you did give an answer. It is cowardly, but sadly typical. You stated that 'termination of one of two equal being should only be done when there is no other choice. Literally no other choice.'

    I then gave you a realistic hypothetical to test your view:
    A pregnant woman has endometrial cancer; without treatment, her own chances of survival following delivery are 20%. With treatment (which will kill the child), her chances of survival are 60%. Do you advocate termination in order to institute treatment?

    You then tell me you answered that.....:confused: Are you going to answer or shy away......again?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 270 ✭✭GarlicBread


    What if a woman presents saying the continued existence of her husband will lead to a suicide. Should we then terminate her husband?

    Clearly the right to life of an individual is NOT altered in relation to the threats a separate individual is making on their own life, so why is it that this is altered when the former individual is a foetus?

    I have to plead ignorant on this, but I do not know what current procedure is in a suicide risk patient. Do we incarcerate them until treatment can be applied? Do we treat and then send them home and hope for the best? Or do we just send them home and do nothing?

    Whatever it is, assuming someone can enlighten me on it, I then have to ask why can we not do the EXACT same in case of a pregnant woman? If we incarcerate and treat all other suicide risks, for example, why can we not do the same with the pregnant woman… treat her, observe her, protect the baby, and then after birth treat both patients?

    I am not trying to get at you here, but I just do not see what changes between a pregnant suicide risk and a normal suicide risk that in one case alters another’s right to life, but in all other cases does not. I am floundering to see the rationale here and need help.

    The fetus is not a seperate independant person, its an extention of the womans body until it is born and cant survive without her. Thats why it is called an abortion, because the pregnancy is aborted before it becomes a person. Otherwise it would be called murder.

    Are you seriously suggesting incarcerating suicidal pregnant women and forceing them to give birth? Please say you didnt mean to say that :eek:.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    A lot of people struggle with this. They baulk at being the one that has committed an act that will kill one person rather than do nothing and kill one person. Many people in such studies prefer to do nothing. Many prefer to take action now and attempt to save the latter soul later. I would be one of those.

    Of course they struggle because you have couched it terms of "killing" when you should be discussing "allowing to die"

    For example, a battlefield surgeon only has time to save one life from two equally critically injured solders. Which one should he kill so he has more time to work on the other?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Noffles wrote: »
    catholics...!!

    Actually, this thread has been notable in the fact we have NOT had any religious people in throwing unsubstantiated claims about the existence of god around. All the arguments so far, whether you agree with them or not, have been entirely independent of religious arguments and for that I am grateful.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,967 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    jmbkay wrote: »
    what would you do?
    I'd encourage her to keep it. Obviously.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    I'll let you tell me what you think it is so I can understand what you really meant by the question.

    I have already answered it for many many pages now over many many weeks. I was curious what YOU think on it. If your approach is to answer a question with a question then so be it, I will just take it you wish not to answer. If you want my answer then just read the first say.... 5 posts I made in this thread, including the essay I linked to in those posts.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement