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

Doctors reject abortion motions

Options
1…468910

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    Turtyturd wrote: »
    That's a ridiculous stance, you can't compare a fully grown independent person with a lifetime of experiences, to a developing foetus baby with no experiences and dependent on someone else to survive.

    Does your statement hold true if we replace foetus with a month old baby? Do you treat a baby as equally deserving of protection as an adult? If you do then can you explain why considering they also meet none of the requirements you mentioned?


  • Options
    #153
    Chuck Stone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,030 ✭✭✭✭Chuck Stone


    Pompey Magnus wrote: »
    In the very rare cases where there is a definite threat to the mother's life, eg an ecoptic pregnancy

    So you support abortion under some circumstances; we'd only disagreeing on the parameters of what's 'acceptable'.
    then the removal of the embryo is fine with me as it's death is not an intended result of the operation

    That's a termination. That's prioritising the life of the mother over that of the embryo. If it wasn't then the embryo should be left within the womb until its mother dies so the chance of survival is maximised.
    Nope, they should be free to travel if they so wish.

    So you agree that people should not be prevented from terminating 'life'?

    That's a lot of circles you're trying to square there bro.


  • Options
    #154
    otto_26
    Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭otto_26


    Turtyturd wrote: »
    You have quite the way of presenting your arguments.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    I already presented my arguments I'm waiting for rebuttals :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • Options
    #155
    Turtyturd
    Registered Users Posts: 28,395 ✭✭✭✭Turtyturd


    Pompey Magnus wrote: »
    Does your statement hold true if we replace foetus with a month old baby? Do you treat a baby as equally deserving of protection as an adult? If you do then can you explain why considering they also meet none of the requirements you mentioned?

    Well a month old baby can survive independently from the mother, it may not do so for long but it can survive....but why should it be replaced as nobody is talking about murdering month old babies, the discussion is about aborting foetus'.


  • Options
    #156
    Turtyturd
    Registered Users Posts: 28,395 ✭✭✭✭Turtyturd


    Chuck Stone wrote: »

    That's a lot of circles you're trying to square there bro.

    Just one of the many problems with natural law.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    Chuck Stone wrote: »
    That's a termination. That's prioritising the life of the mother over that of the embryo.

    It is a termination in the same sense as a person hanging off a cliff whist holding up another person is carrying out a termination should they let that person fall if holding on any longer would mean both their deaths. If both can't be saved then the killing is justified.
    So you agree that people should not be prevented from terminating 'life'?

    That's a lot of circles you're trying to square there bro.

    Not really. People are free to travel and that freedom should be protected. I have no say over the laws in the UK, only in this country.


  • Options
    #158
    shopaholic01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,916 ✭✭✭shopaholic01


    Reported on the news that the government are going ahead with legislation regardless of the IMO decision.


  • Options
    #159
    Neyite
    Administrators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,947 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Neyite


    rox5 wrote: »
    Wait, I am really confused about all this. We did learn about the X Case at at a rape awareness workshop at school a few years ago, and I thought abortion was allowed then if the woman was raped or suicidal or was pregnant by incest or if it was life-threatening. So when Savita died, I thought they were legalising it altogether. :confused:

    The X case brought about a referendum to allow women to travel outside of the country to procure an abortion. Until then it was illegal to to travel or I believe, to even help someone to travel for the purposes of an abortion, it was illegal to provide information of abortion clinics, the adverts in the back of magazines such as Cosmopolitian, or any womens magazines had black censor squares blacking out Abortion Clinic information in the UK.

    And at the time, pretty much the only crisis pregnancy organisation that offered counselling was Cura, who followed the Catholic Church's teachings.

    Condoms had only just gone on display in pharmacies - before this you had to ask for them, and depending on the religious bias of the pharmacist, you may or may not have been sold them. Vending machines were rare enough in the pubs. The year before the X-case, I went to my GP not knowing if I could get the pill or not. Many of my friends thought you had to pretend to be engaged, but luckily I had a progressive female doctor.
    wrote:
    Then again the workshop was not that great. We were told woman cannot rape, only the men, even though I have heard loads of stories of women raping men or women with hand-held objects.

    In Irish law, the count of rape as far as I know specifically refers to a penis as the weapon. If a hand-held object is used, its categorised as sexual assault. But since I'm far from an expert, maybe some legal eagle here can confirm this.


  • Options
    #160
    pickarooney
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,254 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    The councilling a rape victim in that circumstance of being raped followed by an abortion could only come from a trained professional and would more than likely be provided anyway if the rape had been reported so volunteering in that case wouldnt achieve much else.

    With an unwanted child however a lot of support would be needed and the onus in that case should fall on those who demand she should have kept it.




    Fair enough. I just assumed so because another poster in the thread implied something similar towards me and the fact that you were replying to my post.

    If you mean me I never said or implied anything of the sort


  • Options
    #161
    melekalikimaka
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 10,686 Mod ✭✭✭✭melekalikimaka


    cassi wrote: »
    Oh come on now! What pure and utter trip! You can't actually believe that! It sounds like something from deep in the Bible Belt of America!

    It's like a doctor refusing to prescribe the pill because they don't believe in sex before marriage!

    Redicilous

    and you think that what you feel is moral should over shadow the doctors? arrogance of the highest order


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    SB2013
    Closed Accounts Posts: 805 ✭✭✭SB2013


    Neyite wrote: »
    The X case brought about a referendum to allow women to travel outside of the country to procure an abortion. Until then it was illegal to to travel or I believe, to even help someone to travel for the purposes of an abortion, it was illegal to provide information of abortion clinics, the adverts in the back of magazines such as Cosmopolitian, or any womens magazines had black censor squares blacking out Abortion Clinic information in the UK.

    And at the time, pretty much the only crisis pregnancy organisation that offered counselling was Cura, who followed the Catholic Church's teachings.

    Condoms had only just gone on display in pharmacies - before this you had to ask for them, and depending on the religious bias of the pharmacist, you may or may not have been sold them. Vending machines were rare enough in the pubs. The year before the X-case, I went to my GP not knowing if I could get the pill or not. Many of my friends thought you had to pretend to be engaged, but luckily I had a progressive female doctor.



    In Irish law, the count of rape as far as I know specifically refers to a penis as the weapon. If a hand-held object is used, its categorised as sexual assault. But since I'm far from an expert, maybe some legal eagle here can confirm this.

    I think you are thinking of the C case which allowed traffic. The X case was in relation to the threat of suicide being valid as a threat to life of the mother.

    There are two types of rape under Irish law. The first, referred to as common law rape, one is committed if a man has sex with a woman without her consent. Only a man can commit this crime. The second, referred to as section 4 rape, involves oral or anal rape with the use of a penis. It also covers the penetration of the vagina by an object.


  • Options
    #163
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users Posts: 16,133 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Chuck Stone wrote: »

    That's a termination. That's prioritising the life of the mother over that of the embryo. If it wasn't then the embryo should be left within the womb until its mother dies so the chance of survival is maximised.

    I can see how pro-life people would accept the termination of an ectopic pregnancy because it is virtually certain the pregnant woman would die otherwise. But my understanding is that pregancies are terminated in Irish hospitals where there is say a 10 or 20% chance the woman would die otherwise. I find it hard to see how someone who genuinely believes in the equal right to life of woman and foetus could accept this.

    Supposing person A, a fully grown and conscious human being, was hooked up to person B for life support. What level of threat of A have to be posing to B's life (and thereby A's own) to justify 'disconnecting' A? I would suggest it would have to be 50% at the very least...


  • Options
    #164
    Frito
    Registered Users Posts: 769 ✭✭✭Frito


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    Supposing person A, a fully grown and conscious human being, was hooked up to person B for life support. What level of threat of A have to be posing to B's life (and thereby A's own) to justify 'disconnecting' A? I would suggest it would have to be 50% at the very least...

    Threat is irrelevant, all B needs to do is withdraw consent.

    It's why you're not forced or obliged to even donate blood.


  • Options
    #165
    Ann22
    Registered Users Posts: 8,004 ✭✭✭Ann22


    whatdoicare wrote: »
    Actually, what I said was that doctors consider 24 weeks the cut off and are unlikely to provide medical intervention to keep a baby before that alive through medical intervention as the foetus is just too underdeveloped at that stage.

    It is only in the 24th week that the babies bronchi in the lungs develop - (basically the baby would not be able to breath outside the womb at this stage), the organs are developed, the head finally is in proportion to it's body and it's eyes are nearly developed. This is also the time when the baby develops body fat, previous to this the baby is basically loose transparent skin and bone with underdeveloped organs and no lungs.


    Say, a baby who was under 24 wks is in special care on life support.. and someone comes in and plugs out the unit. Is that not murder? That's what I can't get my head around.


  • Options
    #166
    Arpa
    Registered Users Posts: 442 ✭✭Arpa


    Sorry...why has anyone got any say in this apart from the woman in question?

    It's very basic. It's her body, her life, her decision. Doctors should not be voting on this. They are service providers. There seems to be this opinion that people are incapable of making informed medical decisions and therefore those decisions should be made for them by their doctors. Granted, doctors should provide advice, medically, psychologically et al. However doctors in society are revered far too much. They are not magic men/women, they read some books, studied hard and put it into practice but they are not infallible.

    An individual knows the state of their own condition better than any doctor and as such should be the one to decide what choice to make once the medical ramifications of that choice are explained.

    To give a very basic example, which is not commenting specifically on abortion, but the choice of medical decisions taken by a patient in general -

    My computer crashes and won't turn on. I go to a computer repair shop where I talk to a guy with a degree in IT or Computer Science or something. He tells me the computer is repairable and loosely explains what is wrong in laymans terms. He also tells me I could just buy a new one. I can, with that small amount of information make my own decision as to what I should do.

    That may seem very basic, but my point is that we ourselves should be the only ones making decisions once the information is provided to us. It is not the laptop repair guys job to immediately order a new laptop for me.

    So why should doctors or government be making decisions on our behalf? They provide the diagnosis and offer the options. We make the decisions.

    The medical ability to terminate pregnancy is there and if one wants to avail of it then that is one's choice.


  • Options
    #167
    cassi
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭cassi


    melekalikimaka wrote: »
    and you think that what you feel is moral should over shadow the doctors? arrogance of the highest order

    Morality have absolutely no place in medicine. Doctor should treat as required for the best of the patient.


  • Options
    #168
    Crasp
    Registered Users Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Crasp


    Arpa wrote: »
    Sorry...why has anyone got any say in this apart from the woman in question?

    It's very basic. It's her body, her life, her decision. Doctors should not be voting on this. They are service providers. There seems to be this opinion that people are incapable of making informed medical decisions and therefore those decisions should be made for them by their doctors. Granted, doctors should provide advice, medically, psychologically et al. However doctors in society are revered far too much. They are not magic men/women, they read some books, studied hard and put it into practice but they are not infallible.

    An individual knows the state of their own condition better than any doctor and as such should be the one to decide what choice to make once the medical ramifications of that choice are explained.

    To give a very basic example, which is not commenting specifically on abortion, but the choice of medical decisions taken by a patient in general -

    My computer crashes and won't turn on. I go to a computer repair shop where I talk to a guy with a degree in IT or Computer Science or something. He tells me the computer is repairable and loosely explains what is wrong in laymans terms. He also tells me I could just buy a new one. I can, with that small amount of information make my own decision as to what I should do.

    That may seem very basic, but my point is that we ourselves should be the only ones making decisions once the information is provided to us. It is not the laptop repair guys job to immediately order a new laptop for me.

    So why should doctors or government be making decisions on our behalf? They provide the diagnosis and offer the options. We make the decisions.

    The medical ability to terminate pregnancy is there and if one wants to avail of it then that is one's choice.




    who performs the abortion? who actually terminates the pregnancy? I think you'll find that it involves more than just the mother.


    How many abortions is one woman going to have? How many abortions might a doctor perform in his or her career? In a year? In a month?


    I can understand why it might be an issue for many doctors.


  • Options
    #169
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,161 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Crasp wrote: »
    who performs the abortion? who actually terminates the pregnancy? I think you'll find that it involves more than just the mother.


    How many abortions is one woman going to have? How many abortions might a doctor perform in his or her career? In a year? In a month?


    I can understand why it might be an issue for many doctors.

    Fine then. Get a job where they don't have to.

    I hate apple computers. I really, really hate the feckers. Despite working in IT I have never once had a job where I needed to support them. And I'd never apply for one.


  • Options
    #170
    SB2013
    Closed Accounts Posts: 805 ✭✭✭SB2013


    Arpa wrote: »
    Sorry...why has anyone got any say in this apart from the woman in question?

    It's very basic. It's her body, her life, her decision.

    Because people believe that there are two lives being affected and that they must stand up for the one who has no voice. It's far from basic. It's a matter of deciding when human life begins. As far as I'm concerned that's one of the most complex questions out there.


  • Options
    #171
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,161 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    SB2013 wrote: »
    Because people believe that there are two lives being affected and that they must stand up for the one who has no voice. It's far from basic. It's a matter of deciding when human life begins. As far as I'm concerned that's one of the most complex questions out there.

    But if it's the case that you don't know if one is alive or not, and the otherone defionitely is, then you should side with the one that you know is alive.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    SB2013
    Closed Accounts Posts: 805 ✭✭✭SB2013


    Grayson wrote: »
    But if it's the case that you don't know if one is alive or not, and the otherone defionitely is, then you should side with the one that you know is alive.

    It's not about not knowing. It's about different opinions as to when it begins. Everyone knows that their opinion is right. I disagree with you anyway. If you are not sure someone is alive you should not discount that possibility unless it's necessary.


  • Options
    #173
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Arpa wrote: »
    Sorry...why has anyone got any say in this apart from the woman in question?

    Anti-abortion people believe that what you're doing is giving a woman a license to murder her child. Although there's probably an element of ignorance and sexism at play as well as a bit of victim blaming, ultimately they weigh what they perceive to be the murder of a child as being worse than forcing a rape victim to bring her pregnancy to term.
    There's nothing wrong with that logic. Each step makes sense. It's just that it's based on the incorrect premise that a foetus is a person.

    But you're right. Doctors who work for the state have to leave their personal feelings at the door. If they don't want to do abortions they can quit.
    It's like a teacher refusing to teach the curriculum because of their beliefs.


  • Options
    #174
    Arpa
    Registered Users Posts: 442 ✭✭Arpa


    Crasp wrote: »
    who performs the abortion? who actually terminates the pregnancy? I think you'll find that it involves more than just the mother.


    How many abortions is one woman going to have? How many abortions might a doctor perform in his or her career? In a year? In a month?


    I can understand why it might be an issue for many doctors.


    The doctor performs the abortion, and if that particular doctor has a moral issue with it then I'm sure there are plenty, as can be seen in other countries, who do not have a moral issue with performing the procedure.

    Doctors specialise in a particular field and as in the case of the UK for example if a woman decides to terminate then she will go to a doctor who has chosen this area of medicine as his/her field. This doctor will have made their decision early on that they have no moral issue. As such they will be performing a number of terminations on any given day.

    The procedure is performed by a doctor who is comfortable in their practice but the decision is made by the woman or the couple as the case may be.


  • Options
    #175
    Crasp
    Registered Users Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Crasp


    Grayson wrote: »
    Fine then. Get a job where they don't have to.

    I hate apple computers. I really, really hate the feckers. Despite working in IT I have never once had a job where I needed to support them. And I'd never apply for one.


    So all the doctors should change profession? where does that leave them?

    More importantly, where does that leave patients if the majority of doctors* quit?

    your analogy is flawed as doctors (most of the time) only know one thing and that's medicine. If I told you that to avoid apple computer you would need to get out of IT altogether and retrain as something else how would you feel?

    Anyway, that's beside the point. The only point I was making is that the poster I orignally quoted seemed to think that the only person affected by abortion is the woman, quite selfish imo.


    In the UK the practice is that doctors can refuse to perform abortions for whatever reason they like and the woman has to find a doctor who is willing to perform one. Maybe a system like that could work in Ireland.



    *Majority of doctors as represended in the article in the OP.


  • Options
    #176
    Crasp
    Registered Users Posts: 624 ✭✭✭Crasp


    Arpa wrote: »
    The doctor performs the abortion, and if that particular doctor has a moral issue with it then I'm sure there are plenty, as can be seen in other countries, who do not have a moral issue with performing the procedure.

    Doctors specialise in a particular field and as in the case of the UK for example if a woman decides to terminate then she will go to a doctor who has chosen this area of medicine as his/her field. This doctor will have made their decision early on that they have no moral issue. As such they will be performing a number of terminations on any given day.

    The procedure is performed by a doctor who is comfortable in their practice but the decision is made by the woman or the couple as the case may be.


    So now you've changed your position, and doctors should have a choice in whether they perform abortions or not?


  • Options
    #177
    Pompey Magnus
    Registered Users Posts: 5,406 ✭✭✭Pompey Magnus


    cassi wrote: »
    Doctor should treat as required for the best of the patient.

    They do, except some doctors believe that in the case of a pregnancy they are treating two patients and should treat as required for the best of both.
    Morality have absolutely no place in medicine.

    The Nuremberg Doctors' trial verdict would disagree.


  • Options
    #178
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    cassi wrote: »
    Morality have absolutely no place in medicine.

    Perhaps not, but ethics do. And it would hardly be ethical to force or expect doctors to carry out procedures that the majority are opposed to doing.

    Not that I agree with their position.. but there's lots of medico-ethical stuff I disagree with which happens regardless.


  • Options
    #179
    cassi
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭cassi


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Perhaps not, but ethics do. And it would hardly be ethical to force or expect doctors to carry out procedures that the majority are opposed to doing.

    Not that I agree with their position.. but there's lots of medico-ethical stuff I disagree with which happens regardless.

    The doctors job is to provide medical care and perform medical procedures. If abortion comes into law then doctors will be expected to provide it regardless of their stance on it.

    And if they are working in a clinic or hospital that offers abortions then they can't refuse to do one!

    They can have a motion on it but regardless of its outcome, the outcome of a referendum will be the deciding factor here.


  • Options
    #180
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Perhaps not, but ethics do. And it would hardly be ethical to force or expect doctors to carry out procedures that the majority are opposed to doing.

    If the majority of doctors turned Jehovah's Witness in the morning would it be ethical to remove blood transfusions from standard medical procedures? Or to allow doctors tell patients they'll have to get the procedure done elsewhere?

    Doctor's should be objective. If a doctor is opposed to a particular procedure they should either find someone willing to do it or keep quiet and do it themselves.

    Allowing doctors to say "no" to an accepted and legislated procedure puts them in a position of power that allows them to circumvent the democratic system that made that procedure available in the first place.

    If they're not willing to do their job then maybe they should find another job.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    dyer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 598 ✭✭✭dyer


    Regardless of how I feel about it, as a male, I don't think I can or will ever fully understand or appreciate how a woman would feel about making this decision, whether biologically, emotionally or on any other level, if it's what they feel is right, I support that decision 110%.

    I don't see why, in this day and age, people still feel they have the right to dictate the lives of others, however well intentioned. Forcing people to do what they don't want to do and using the law to do it, is simply tantamount to torture, at least in my humble opinion.


Advertisement