8th Amendment

Atlantis50 · 10-06-2015 03:13PM

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I have not furthered my education in the past hour, no. I do however still find that glib and sarcastic post that I rightly thanked quite amusing.

What's amusing is your attempt at trying to cover having liked such a stupid post.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I take it that you believe a foetus exists prior to 10 weeks.

No. Then it's a human embryo, the starting point for a human life.

Delirium · 10-06-2015 03:18PM

Atlantis50 wrote: »

The "case studies" are an epic fail on the part of Amnesty International.

The "Ms Y" case study is basically arguing that a baby that is now almost 1 year old should have been aborted instead of delivered alive by C-section.

What kind of perverse so-called "human rights" organisation would make such a bizarre claim?

The case of "Rebecca H" is obviously not about abortion at all.

What a joke of a report.

Of course, they failed to mention this:

"A patient safety system, aimed at alerting health staff when a pregnant woman's condition is deteriorating, is not being operated properly in six out of seven maternity hospitals audited by the HSE."

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/unit-where-savita-died-fails-safety-checks-test-30917914.html

It's things like that, more than anything to do with the 8th Amendment, that is putting the lives of women at risk.

A hopelessly biased joke of a report by a so-called "human rights" advocate that has clearly lost its way.

With regards to the issues that I quoted in my post, do you have any problem with them? Do you think they are acceptable situations for women to go through in Ireland?

Atlantis50 · 10-06-2015 03:37PM

SW wrote: »

With regards to the issues that I quoted in my post, do you have any problem with them? Do you think they are acceptable situations for women to go through in Ireland?

Regarding the case of "Lupe" - again this has nothing to do with the 8th Amendment. There was no unborn life to protect.

Whether or not her treatment was acceptable obviously depends on her specific medical situation, but it is common practice worldwide for the dead embryo or foetus (pre-18 weeks) to be left in the woman for weeks until there is a spontaneous abortion (and there are also alternative approaches - it is up to the judgement of the doctors):

"THE DEAD BABY DEATH BEFORE 18 WEEKS [s7](missed abortion) If a mother's uterus is small for her gestational age, perhaps with a brownish vaginal discharge, suspect the death of her baby. Monitor the growth of her uterus carefully. If he is dead, it will not grow, and may even become smaller. Pregnancy tests become negative. Methods of detecting the fetal heartbeat vary in their sensitivity: ultrasound scanning detects it at 8 weeks, Doppler ultrasound at 10[nd]16 weeks, and an ordinary stethoscope at 20[nd]28 weeks.

THE DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS includes a normal pregnancy of shorter duration (wrong dates), a slow-leaking ectopic pregnancy, a false pregnancy, and fibroids.

MANAGEMENT. You can, if you wish do nothing for several weeks. Spontaneous abortion will inevitably follow. Alternatively:
If her uterus is smaller than 10 weeks (a small [f41]orange), you can do a ''D and C', either using the ordinary method (16.2) or a Karman curette. Give her perioperative chloramphenicol and metronidazole (2.9) when you do this (one contributor considers this unnecessary). Dilate her cervix up to at least Hegar 10. If possible, ''prime' her cervix with prostaglandins beforehand. Either, (1) put a 0.5 mg tablet of prostaglandin E[,2] in her cervix, and repeat this 6-hourly for 24 hours. Or, (2) place 3 mg prostaglandin E[,2] vaginal tablets in her vagina 6 hourly. Or, (3) use a newer preparation, gemeprost (''Cervagem').

If you are using a Karman curette, dilate her cervix to 8 Hegar and then use a Number 8 Karman curette with a vacuum of up to 500 mm Hg. Continue until her uterus is empty, and you can feel her uterus tight round the curette.

If her uterus is larger than 10 weeks, don't attempt an ordinary ''D and C'. Instead, either use oxytocin and/or prostaglandins, see below. Or, dilate her uterus to 11 Hegar, and use a No 10 Karman curette, which is safe up to 12 weeks[md]but not beyond."

http://www.meb.uni-bonn.de/dtc/primsurg/docbook/html/x5001.html

As I've already posted, the case of "Rebecca H" is obviously not about abortion at all and I see nothing wrong with her treatment.

I also believe that it was the correct course of action that "Ms Y" was not given an abortion and instead a live baby that is now almost a year old was delivered by C-section.

10-06-2015 03:54PM

Atlantis50 wrote: »

.

I also believe that it was the correct course of action that "Ms Y" was not given an abortion and instead a live baby that is now almost a year old was delivered by C-section.

The "Ms Y" case study is basically arguing that a baby that is now almost 1 year old should have been aborted instead of delivered alive by C-section.

You seem to be placing undue relevance on the fact that a living baby has resulted from Miss Y's unwanted pregnancy, which I assume is intended as a sort of 'appeal to emotion': look at the cute little baby that all those nasty pro-choice Herods want done-in'.

Well, since the child is here now, it has to be embraced. But shouting-down any criticism of its entry into the world as unspeakable is tantamount to suggesting that if we had a time-machine, we should not undo the rape.

The maximisation of living offspring is the sole intention of the beasts of the land and the creatures of the sea. We humans know better than to sit in our own filth and reproduce as much as possible.

Certainly, if a mating pair of humans recklessly abandoned contraception and bore twenty children resulting in their own personal and economic ruin, they would still love every child and nobody would ever want to harm any of their young children. To harm them for having been born would be revolting.

But it is not equally revolting to countenance the prevention of their birth to begin with. Presumably you agree, otherwise you would be advocating humans going at it like rabbits, 24/7, and the prohibition of contraceptives.

tl;dr: Preventing a birth is not morally equivalent to undoing birth.

volchitsa · 10-06-2015 04:35PM

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Whether or not her treatment was acceptable obviously depends on her specific medical situation, but it is common practice worldwide for the dead embryo or foetus (pre-18 weeks) to be left in the woman for weeks until there is a spontaneous abortion (and there are also alternative approaches - it is up to the judgement of the doctors):

http://www.meb.uni-bonn.de/dtc/primsurg/docbook/html/x5001.html

That link is an absolute hoot, where did you dig it out from?
It's some sort of manual for volunteer doctors going out to work in third world countries. This is from the preface :

You may have had very little surgical experience and yet have to operate on severely ill patients. In an emergency you may even have to operate by the light of a hurricane lantern. The light will attract insects, and these will fall into the wound, but even so they are unlikely to influence the patient's recovery. From an illustration kindly contributed by WHO.

We write for: (1) General-duty doctors with only a year or two of surgical experience, responsible for all the patients clamouring for care in a district hospital. We tell you what to do, and what you could do, if there is no real hope of referring a patient to anyone else.

One thing it's not, though, is a manual of standard practice in western hospitals.

(I'm amazed that you can be so determined to distort reality to make it appear as you would like it to be! Is that a document provided by Iona or Youth Defence or do you just come from a long line of missionaries in your family?

)

Atlantis50 · 10-06-2015 04:58PM

volchitsa wrote: »

That link is an absolute hoot, where did you dig it out from?
It's some sort of manual for volunteer doctors going out to work in third world countries. This is from the preface :

One thing it's not, though, is a manual of standard practice in western hospitals.

(I'm amazed that you can be so determined to distort reality to make it appear as you would like it to be! Is that a document provided by Iona or Youth Defence or do you just come from a long line of missionaries in your family? )

You are wrong.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2005/1001/p1243.html

You're the one distorting reality.

Atlantis50 · 10-06-2015 05:00PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You seem to be placing undue relevance on the fact that a living baby has resulted from Miss Y's unwanted pregnancy, which I assume is intended as a sort of 'appeal to emotion': look at the cute little baby that all those nasty pro-choice Herods want done-in'.

Well, since the child is here now, it has to be embraced. But shouting-down any criticism of its entry into the world as unspeakable is tantamount to suggesting that if we had a time-machine, we should not undo the rape.

The maximisation of living offspring is the sole intention of the beasts of the land and the creatures of the sea. We humans know better than to sit in our own filth and reproduce as much as possible.

Certainly, if a mating pair of humans recklessly abandoned contraception and bore twenty children resulting in their own personal and economic ruin, they would still love every child and nobody would ever want to harm any of their young children. To harm them for having been born would be revolting.

But it is not equally revolting to countenance the prevention of their birth to begin with. Presumably you agree, otherwise you would be advocating humans going at it like rabbits, 24/7, and the prohibition of contraceptives.

tl;dr: Preventing a birth is not morally equivalent to undoing birth.

Yes, the fact that there is a baby alive today which would not be if Amnesty had their way is extremely relevant and can't be ignored.

The rest of your post is rambling that is irrelevant to the debate.

10-06-2015 05:09PM

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Yes, the fact that there is a baby alive today which would not be if Amnesty had their way is extremely relevant and can't be ignored.

There would be babies alive today if condoms were prohibited.

Should condoms be prohibited?

No Voter And Proud · 10-06-2015 05:12PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There would be babies alive today if condoms were prohibited.

Should condoms be prohibited?

Big difference and you know it
Life is not extinguished if a condom prevents it

10-06-2015 05:14PM

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Big difference and you know it
Life is not extinguished if a condom prevents it

You're missing the point and you know it.

There would be babies alive today. Cute, merry, delicious little babies in bonnets and wellington-boots romping in meadows.

All those would-be babies cast out of existence by contraceptives.

No Voter And Proud · 10-06-2015 05:15PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You're missing the point and you know it.

There would be babies alive today. Cute, merry, delicious little babies in bonnets and wellington-boots romping in meadows.

Should we therefore extrapolate from your comments that girls who reject men in bars are therefore guilty of murder?

You pro death lot are hilarious sometimes!

volchitsa · 10-06-2015 05:17PM

Atlantis50 wrote: »

You are wrong.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2005/1001/p1243.html

You're the one distorting reality.

Sorry, what's your point? The link you gave earlier is specifically designed for doctors operating in low tech district hospitals in the developing countries, where much "essential" equipment in western countries is not available and where there is often no-one higher up that a young doctor can refer a patient too. It says so in the link.

It adapts international best practice to the realities of a very poorly equipped hospital, which may not even have reliable electricity.

I'm sure it's a genuinely brilliant book, enabling doctors to per from heroic feats of lifesaving that they could never do in Europe or the USA - but citing it as evidence of what should or would happen in Ireland is like posting a link to a handbook for a Tigermoth aeroplane to explain how a Boeing 747 is flown : basically the same principle for remaining in the air, but definitely not a reliable indicator nevertheless.

Now come on, tell us where you found such a gem. It's absolutely wonderful, it really is.

PS for instance, one difference - and it's crucial in this context - is the ACCEPT/REFUSE which appears as part of the flow chart in your latest diagram. I'm sure you can see why.

Delirium · 10-06-2015 05:18PM

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Should we therefore extrapolate from your comments that girls who reject men in bars are therefore guilty of murder?

You pro death lot are hilarious sometimes!

So pro-choice is pro-extinction now?

10-06-2015 05:25PM

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Should we therefore extrapolate from your comments that girls who reject men in bars are therefore guilty of murder?

No, but the logical extension of the argument being made is that promiscuity is good, since it maximises babies.

If a girl goes and sleeps with the first man she sees emerging from a ditch, and has the bad luck to fall pregnant, she will undoubtedly adore the child that results. Perhaps when she is on her deathbed, she will even say that being a mother has made cruel old life bearable & worthwhile.

No healthy and good-natured woman would kill her child.
But every sensible, healthy woman knows that, most of the time, she should carefully prevent giving birth to children, regardless of whether she would adore them.

So, to argue that a bouncy little newborn boy proves that abortion is wrong because simply because abortion prevents bouncy little newborns, is tantamount to saying that anything which prevents newborns is wrong. That's ridiculous, is it not?

Black Menorca · 10-06-2015 06:06PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You may have confused Amnesty International with Amoebas Rights International. Amnesty defend human rights, not the rights of single-celled organisms.

But Amnesty are advocating for killing unborn human life.

Why does Amnesty continue with the charade of being a human rights organisation?

Black Menorca · 10-06-2015 06:09PM

SW wrote: »

With regards to the issues that I quoted in my post, do you have any problem with them? Do you think they are acceptable situations for women to go through in Ireland?

No.

Y wanted baby Hope dead, rather than deliver him alive.

Completely unacceptable.

Black Menorca · 10-06-2015 06:10PM

Atlantis50 wrote: »

You are wrong.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/2005/1001/p1243.html

You're the one distorting reality.

Great post.

Delirium · 10-06-2015 06:15PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

No.

Y wanted baby Hope dead, rather than deliver him alive.

Completely unacceptable.

Where did I quote/ mention the Y case in the post you responded to?

PopePalpatine · 10-06-2015 06:21PM

And now Ms. Y's baby probably has all sorts of handicaps after being delivered at (if I recall correctly) some time around 25-28 weeks.

traprunner · 10-06-2015 07:14PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

And now Ms. Y's baby probably has all sorts of handicaps after being delivered at (if I recall correctly) some time around 25-28 weeks.

Also, the mother is physically scarred and probably mentally scared for life. Every time she looks down at her stomach she will have the reminder present.

Black Menorca · 10-06-2015 07:23PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

And now Ms. Y's baby probably has all sorts of handicaps after being delivered at (if I recall correctly) some time around 25-28 weeks.

Because of the selfishness of Hope's mother, he does face severe challenges in his life. But he is alive and fighting. If his mother had her way he's be dead and flushed down a drain by now.

Black Menorca · 10-06-2015 07:23PM

SW wrote: »

Where did I quote/ mention the Y case in the post you responded to?

You didn't.

K-9 · 10-06-2015 07:54PM

And we're are getting emotional , personal and OTT again.

If people can't post without throwing slurs at each other access will be withdrawn, simples.

It's a politics board so we expect a certain standard of debate, and for the most we've had a good discussion on the subject.

Sheldons Brain · 10-06-2015 11:54PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

There would be babies alive today if condoms were prohibited.

Should condoms be prohibited?

THis is a complete red herring. Contraception is a positive thing, not having a baby (if you don't want one) is a reasonable measure. Having one and killing it is not.

Atlantis50 · 11-06-2015 04:48AM

volchitsa wrote: »

Sorry, what's your point? The link you gave earlier is specifically designed for doctors operating in low tech district hospitals in the developing countries, where much "essential" equipment in western countries is not available and where there is often no-one higher up that a young doctor can refer a patient too. It says so in the link.

It adapts international best practice to the realities of a very poorly equipped hospital, which may not even have reliable electricity.

I'm sure it's a genuinely brilliant book, enabling doctors to per from heroic feats of lifesaving that they could never do in Europe or the USA - but citing it as evidence of what should or would happen in Ireland is like posting a link to a handbook for a Tigermoth aeroplane to explain how a Boeing 747 is flown : basically the same principle for remaining in the air, but definitely not a reliable indicator nevertheless.

Now come on, tell us where you found such a gem. It's absolutely wonderful, it really is.

PS for instance, one difference - and it's crucial in this context - is the ACCEPT/REFUSE which appears as part of the flow chart in your latest diagram. I'm sure you can see why.

How many links do you need before you accept reality?

http://hse.ie/eng/about/Who/clinical/natclinprog/obsandgynaeprogramme/guide9.pdf

Section 5.4 - Conservative Management of a Miscarriage:

Conservative management is an effective and acceptable method to offer women who miscarry provided there are no signs of infection (vaginal discharge), excessive bleeding, pyrexia or abdominal pain.

Women should be counselled on what to expect, the likely amount of blood loss and what analgesics to take.

Follow up scans may be arranged at 2 weekly intervals, until a diagnosis of complete miscarriage is made. However, if the woman requests a surgical or medical approach to their management at any stage it should be arranged.

Authors: Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Royal College of Physicians of Ireland and Directorate of Strategy and Clinical Programmes, Health Service Executive.

Now if "Lupe" did not want "Conservative Management" of her miscarriage, she should have medical or surgical management as the manual indicates. The fact that she didn't is down to a decision of her doctors and has nothing to do with abortion or the 8th Amendment.

11-06-2015 08:33AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

THis is a complete red herring. Contraception is a positive thing, not having a baby (if you don't want one) is a reasonable measure. Having one and killing it is not.

Contraception does not have a 100% success rate.

What of those who use contraception that then fails? What do you suggest for them?

Zubeneschamali · 11-06-2015 08:35AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

not having a baby (if you don't want one) is a reasonable measure. Having one and killing it is not.

Indeed, having a baby and then killing it is illegal everywhere.

No-one thinks a fertilized egg, implanted or not, is a baby.

K-9 · 11-06-2015 11:42AM

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

THis is a complete red herring. Contraception is a positive thing, not having a baby (if you don't want one) is a reasonable measure. Having one and killing it is not.

<br />
<br />
Nobody is going to disagree with that.<br />
<br />
Which comes back to the usual questions, is the morning after pill a contraceptive?

krankykitty · 11-06-2015 03:34PM

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Regarding the case of "Lupe" - again this has nothing to do with the 8th Amendment. There was no unborn life to protect.

As I've already posted, the case of "Rebecca H" is obviously not about abortion at all and I see nothing wrong with her treatment.

I also believe that it was the correct course of action that "Ms Y" was not given an abortion and instead a live baby that is now almost a year old was delivered by C-section.

It would be nice if it could be remembered that these "Names" that you're putting in quotation marks are real, live women who, whether you believe it's to do with the 8th amendment or not, have been treated appallingly by the maternity services in this country.

And you see nothing wrong with Rebecca H's treatment? Didn't her mental state or her ongoing health matter? Did it not matter that she was lied to by the hospital, requested to have a say in her treatment (like you would in any other branch of medicine) and was flatly denied? Instead, putting her through a long labour she knew her body couldn't cope with and that put her son at risk.

Yeah, great treatment.

traprunner · 11-06-2015 03:57PM

krankykitty wrote: »

It would be nice if it could be remembered that these "Names" that you're putting in quotation marks are real, live women who, whether you believe it's to do with the 8th amendment or not, have been treated appallingly by the maternity services in this country.

And you see nothing wrong with Rebecca H's treatment? Didn't her mental state or her ongoing health matter? Did it not matter that she was lied to by the hospital, requested to have a say in her treatment (like you would in any other branch of medicine) and was flatly denied? Instead, putting her through a long labour she knew her body couldn't cope with and that put her son at risk.

Yeah, great treatment.

The vast majority of people I have come across that wish to retain the 8th Amendment are men. I find that strange and very controlling. They are great at throwing up cases and ignoring that they are talking about real women. It's easier to refer to them as cases. It takes the emotion out of an emotive topic yet they are more than happy to use emotional and incorrect words like 'baby'.

8th Amendment

Comments