Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

SusieBlue · 18-05-2019 11:37pm

petalgumdrops wrote: »

This came up during the referendum and until a test case is brought to the supreme court I believe we will not have a full understanding of the impact that the removal of constitutional protection has on the 8th.

We have many rights that are guaranteed in the constitution, free speech, right to own property etc etc we have repealed the only right the unborn had and so until this is tested the outcome is not fully known.

I believe the thousands of babies safely born so far this year would be proof of that.

Doctors aren’t about to start washing their hands of their duty of care & responsibility to give adequate prenatal care just because it has been removed from the constitution.

It wasn’t constitutionally protected before 1983 and doctors were obliged to fulfil their duties then.

uptherebels · 18-05-2019 11:39pm

Nobelium wrote: »

Then why do you claim to be the spokesperson for our society ?

I never claimed to be anything of the sort.
Highlighting that our society sees two situations as different which is reflected by our mentality to, and laws regarding each is not being a spokesperson.

SusieBlue · 18-05-2019 11:40pm

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Every professional has a duty of care as do doctors. When mistakes are made by doctors there are greater repercussions as it can literally be life/death. Doctors don't go around trying to give substandard care, don't confuse my point. The system in which they are working is so overstrected that mistakes have and will be made. I may be lucky and it won't affect me but you can guarantee that we will hear more of these stories and I would put my house on that. I am protected from malpractice as I have constitutional protection that guarantees my rights. The unborn..... not so clear!

Sorry but no, it’s not unclear. They are still bound by malpractice laws and the civil liability act.
The unborn are also protected by these laws, as they were before 1983.
It sounds like you are projecting being honest.

nullzero · 18-05-2019 11:42pm

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Im replying to the poster on a point they made about whether the 8th still being in place would have had an effect here. People respond to posters on points that pique their interest all the time. All I remarked on was that they are making this case about them.

I don't recall ever having an argument with the poster a year ago?

You stated that you knew the poster from a previous thread,it had been implied by them that it was the referendum thread from last year.

Stating that they were making this case about them forms the crux of what I took issue with. Looking at their posts objectively, they weren't doing that, they were offering their own personal experience that was relevant to the discussion at hand (which most of us here don't have) which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

petalgumdrops · 18-05-2019 11:43pm

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Are you replying to the correct post? I have no sense of self righteous indignation and I know the poster from the previous thread.

I never denied the other poster their opinion... I am expressing my disagreement with it.

If you have a problem with my post.. Report it.

You also belitted and played down my experience on the other thread. You didn't jump in compassionately when the validity of my account was being questioned or poked at.

I clearly stated that this could happen again and that's why I was telling my story so that people knew mistakes can and do happen. The only feedback rather than trying to learn from my experience or gain an insight into those who had reservations was "isn't it great for you that you had the choice" nobody was gonna force you to have a termination.

I'm going to let you own your own opinions on the matter but it was an experience!

volchitsa · 18-05-2019 11:46pm

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I remember many exchanges with you during the campaign about my story and all i'm going to say is that the concerns of I and many others who suffered a misdiagnosis were not listened to. Our stories showed that these results can be flawed as testified by so many women but these would have compromised repeal and so it really is no wonder when all parties are not afforded a voice to express concerns that issues would arisearise.
My story was pulled apart by many people currently on this thread- those same people thankfully have the sense not to engage with me now. Perhaps they know I had a point, a valid contribution they should have listened to. In incidents such as these its not nice to be right!

I don't remember you at all so I have no idea what your story is that was pulled apart but clearly it rankles with you.

But now I understand why you've been misrepresenting significant elements of this case.

uptherebels · 18-05-2019 11:52pm

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Again you need to focus on the babies like the baby in this case that was wanted. Unwanted babies that will be terminated anyway don't require constitutional protection I.e up to 12 weeks gestation. Those over should be afforded protection with allowance for FFA.
Repeal has affected wanted and unwanted babies by indiscriminately removing the right to life of all babies. Those that are wanted and those that are not.
Lets see how far this family get with a legal case? I've read they are speaking with solicitors!

Except this wanted baby was misdiagnosed with a FFA. So your allowance for FFA wouldn't have helped. Wanted babies won't get aborted unless there is a belief or misbelief of a serious problem. So I don't really see how you can legislate for only wanted babies.

Nobelium · 18-05-2019 11:54pm

uptherebels wrote: »

I never claimed to be anything of the sort.
Highlighting that our society sees two situations as different which is reflected by our mentality to, and laws regarding each is not being a spokesperson.

Again why do you claim to know and represent "society's" view, and who elected you as "society's" spokesperson ?

Hannibal_Smith · 18-05-2019 11:55pm

nullzero wrote: »

You stated that you knew the poster from a previous thread,it had been implied by them that it was the referendum thread from last year.

Stating that they were making this case about them forms the crux of what I took issue with. Looking at their posts objectively, they weren't doing that, they were offering their own personal experience that was relevant to the discussion at hand (which most of us here don't have) which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

I did recognise them from the referendum thread. But I don't recall arguing or even replying to them, I recall the story.

You think their posts are perfectly reasonable I don't and I replied to the poster on that basis. Which I'm going to get back to and you can report anything you don't like.

petalgumdrops · 19-05-2019 12:03am

DubInMeath wrote: »

You and a number of pro life posters were saying before the referendum that maternity care in Ireland was of a higher standard than the UK because of the 8th, now suddenly it isn't because of the repeal of the 8th.

As a question do you feel that your doctors are not looking after you given the slightly increased risks a person over 40 may face in their pregnancy?

Pro life? Are you suggesting I'm pro life? I do not hold an absolutist view on termination but I struggle massively with the removal of the right to life and the potential for mistakes to happen.
I do believe on statistics we did have the best if not one of the best maternal records? This was in respose in yes campaign stating that it was the 8th that was killing women. It didn't kill Malik thawley, nora hyland or the two women that died this year. The hyperbole in relation to woman being killed under the 8th was what I was trying to address.

My doctors are looking after me great thanks. The system is stretched, under resourced, under funded, under staffed etc but We never think something will go wrong do we?. Maybe my previous experience makes me subconsciously anxious to something happening and I am scared sometimes. 2 women have died this year in.maternity hospitals this year!

I'm just lucky that I have no issues that make me high risk (for now) but if a mistake is made with my baby (touch wood it doesn't) then I'm not confident of my right to redress!
This family that have lost their baby - while they exercised their choice I can't see how procedure was followed. 3 doctors telling her a CVS was conclusive? If they can't get interpretation and knowing the limitations of the diagnostic testing they use then I didn't hold out much hope for gold standard maternity care now!

Also I'm 32 not 40 but definitely feeling a bit older!!!

Hannibal_Smith · 19-05-2019 12:05am

petalgumdrops wrote: »

You also belitted and played down my experience on the other thread. You didn't jump in compassionately when the validity of my account was being questioned or poked at.

I clearly stated that this could happen again and that's why I was telling my story so that people knew mistakes can and do happen. The only feedback rather than trying to learn from my experience or gain an insight into those who had reservations was "isn't it great for you that you had the choice" nobody was gonna force you to have a termination.

I'm going to let you own your own opinions on the matter but it was an experience!

I've no recollection of posting with you. If you were posting in the same style as you are now though... I imagine I would have replied in the same vein as now.

Who was forced to have a termination?

19-05-2019 12:10am

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Pro life? Are you suggesting I'm pro life? I do not hold an absolutist view on termination but I struggle massively with the removal of the right to life and the potential for mistakes to happen.
I do believe on statistics we did have the best if not one of the best maternal records? This was in respose in yes campaign stating that it was the 8th that was killing women. It didn't kill Malik thawley, nora hyland or the two women that died this year. The hyperbole in relation to woman being killed under the 8th was what I was trying to address.

My doctors are looking after me great thanks. The system is stretched, under resourced, under funded, under staffed etc but We never think something will go wrong do we?. Maybe my previous experience makes me subconsciously anxious to something happening and I am scared sometimes. 2 women have died this year in.maternity hospitals this year!

I'm just lucky that I have no issues that make me high risk (for now) but if a mistake is made with my baby (touch wood it doesn't) then I'm not confident of my right to redress!
This family that have lost their baby - while they exercised their choice I can't see how procedure was followed. 3 doctors telling her a CVS was conclusive? If they can't get interpretation and knowing the limitations of the diagnostic testing they use then I didn't hold out much hope for gold standard maternity care now!

Also I'm 32 not 40 but definitely feeling a bit older!!!

32 but in another thread about 7 or so years ago you said you were 36?

petalgumdrops · 19-05-2019 12:11am

uptherebels wrote: »

Except this wanted baby was misdiagnosed with a FFA. So your allowance for FFA wouldn't have helped. Wanted babies won't get aborted unless there is a belief or misbelief of a serious problem. So I don't really see how you can legislate for only wanted babies.

They didn't necessitate that she took an amniocenthesis to conclusively get a result of ffa. CVS is a mixture of maternal and fetal dna and it is not as accurate as a amnio. This baby was aborted before it was conclusively diagnosed so yes a wanted baby did get aborted. There should be no exuse for misdiagnosis and hospitals need to ensure an amnio is the only test that will guarantee a ffa in the future!

petalgumdrops · 19-05-2019 12:12am

DubInMeath wrote: »

32 but in another thread about 7 or so years ago you said you were 36?

Hang on and I'll get u my pps number too!!!!!

19-05-2019 12:15am

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Hang on and I'll get u my pps number too!!!!!

No need.

Just wondering about the stated age difference given the slightly increased risks and suddenly apparently Irish maternity care has gone downhill since repeal apparently.

jeremyj1968 · 19-05-2019 12:22am

On a completely unrelated topic, wasn't it great that the Eighth was repealed.

petalgumdrops · 19-05-2019 12:22am

DubInMeath wrote: »

No need.

Just wondering about the stated age difference given the slightly increased risks and suddenly apparently Irish maternity care has gone downhill since repeal apparently.

Do u not think that 3 nurses looking after 30+ patients and their newborns on the day a woman and a baby died is indicative of a drop in standards? Do u think that constitutes good maternity care. The 8th wasn't responsibile? Do you think it inspires confidence in women that will access maternity care in Ireland? Savita case was used as a means to promote a fear of being pregnant in irisg hospitals and I think these deaths point to an overall maternity system that is in need of overhaul.
We were promised that repeal would also mean greater rights to consent in maternity care. Aims etc have gone quiet on this though as they know the consent issue to intervention is often due to a hospitals active management of labour policy. Joe duffy did a good radio interview show of women this year who had horror stories from maternity hospitals in Ireland. Horror stories that came from a post repeal maternity service.

SusieBlue · 19-05-2019 12:24am

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Do u not think that 3 nurses looking after 30+ patients on the day a woman and a baby died is indicative of a drop in standards? Do u think that constitutes good maternity care. The 8th wasn't responsibile? Do you think it inspires confidence in women that will access maternity care in Ireland? Savita case was used as a means to promote a fear of being pregnant in irisg hospitals and I think these deaths point to an overall maternity system that is in need of overhaul.
We were promised that repeal would also mean greater rights to consent in maternity care. Aims etc have gone quiet on this though as they know the consent issue to intervention is often due to a hospitals active management of labour policy. Joe duffy did a good radio interview show of women this year who had horror stories from maternity hospitals in Ireland. Horror stories that came from a post repeal maternity service.

I hope you aren’t referring to the tragic situation that happened in CUMH recently in the above post.
What happened that woman and baby had absolutely nothing to do with Repeal, abortion, or staffing. It was a freak accident.

petalgumdrops · 19-05-2019 12:25am

SusieBlue wrote: »

I hope you aren’t referring to the tragic situation that happened in CUMH recently in the above post.
What happened that woman and baby had absolutely nothing to do with Repeal, abortion, or staffing. It was a freak accident.

It is in response to a the standard of maternity care in Ireland!!!!

Plumbthedepths · 19-05-2019 12:27am

petalgumdrops wrote:

It is in response to a the standard of maternity care in Ireland!

So if standards are so bad, which country will you be going to for maternity care?

petalgumdrops · 19-05-2019 12:28am

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Hang on and I'll get u my pps number too!!!!!

If it was 7 years ago I was 26 so clearly an error but thanks for checking for me ðŸ˜Š

SusieBlue · 19-05-2019 12:28am

petalgumdrops wrote: »

It is in response to a the standard of maternity care in Ireland!!!!

The death of that woman & her baby had nothing to do with the standard of maternity care.
It’s in really poor taste to bring it up.

19-05-2019 12:30am

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Do u not think that 3 nurses looking after 30+ patients on the day a woman and a baby died is indicative of a drop in standards? Do u think that constitutes good maternity care. The 8th wasn't responsibile? Do you think it inspires confidence in women that will access maternity care in Ireland? Savita case was used as a means to promote a fear of being pregnant in irisg hospitals and I think these deaths point to an overall maternity system that is in need of overhaul.
We were promised that repeal would also mean greater rights to consent in maternity care. Aims etc have gone quiet on this though as they know the consent issue to intervention is often due to a hospitals active management of labour policy. Joe duffy did a good radio interview show of women this year who had horror stories from maternity hospitals in Ireland. Horror stories that came from a post repeal maternity service.

Pretty much the same ratio of nurses to patients then as before repeal, and actually nothing to do with repeal.

I'm simply asking as a 32/42 year old woman are you not receiving the same level of maternity care that you received for your pregnancy prior to repal.

pinkyeye · 19-05-2019 12:33am

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Do u not think that 3 nurses looking after 30+ patients and their newborns on the day a woman and a baby died is indicative of a drop in standards? Do u think that constitutes good maternity care. The 8th wasn't responsibile? Do you think it inspires confidence in women that will access maternity care in Ireland? Savita case was used as a means to promote a fear of being pregnant in irisg hospitals and I think these deaths point to an overall maternity system that is in need of overhaul.
We were promised that repeal would also mean greater rights to consent in maternity care. Aims etc have gone quiet on this though as they know the consent issue to intervention is often due to a hospitals active management of labour policy. Joe duffy did a good radio interview show of women this year who had horror stories from maternity hospitals in Ireland. Horror stories that came from a post repeal maternity service.

Sorry now, I have remained quiet up to now out of respect to you and your previous situation but quoting Joe Duffy and claiming those stories were post repeal is COMPLETE AND UTTER BS.

Those stories went as back as far as 1980 and in fact the most recent one I hear was pre repeal so that is a total LIE. And I listened to them all.

And also using the recent tragic situation in CUMH is disgusting. What on earth did that have to with repeal???

Seems to me as if you're just enjoying a "told you so" moment in an utterly disgusting manner.

petalgumdrops · 19-05-2019 12:33am

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So if standards are so bad, which country will you be going to for maternity care?

I often wondered that during the repeal campaign too. So dangerous to have a baby but still many yes voters had babies in this country which I'll also do like I did with my other kids!

pinkyeye · 19-05-2019 12:36am

jeremyj1968 wrote: »

On a completely unrelated topic, wasn't it great that the Eighth was repealed.

Yes it is. Rarely we agree on a subject but on this one we can. :rolleyes:

petalgumdrops · 19-05-2019 12:36am

pinkyeye wrote: »

Sorry now, I have remained quiet up to now out of respect to you and your previous situation but quoting Joe Duffy and claiming those stories were post repeal is COMPLETE AND UTTER BS.

Those stories went as back as far as 1980 and in fact the most recent one I hear was pre repeal so that is a total LIE. And I listened to them all.

And also using the recent tragic situation in CUMH is disgusting. What on earth did that have to with repeal???

Seems to me as if you're just enjoying a "told you so" moment in an utterly disgusting manner.

There was a couple of days of stories of which many stories were from this year and the end of 2018. You can search online for them. I must check out the others.

I'll ignore your "told u so" remark!

Plumbthedepths · 19-05-2019 12:38am

petalgumdrops wrote:

Do u not think that 3 nurses looking after 30+ patients and their newborns on the day a woman and a baby died is indicative of a drop in standards? Do u think that constitutes good maternity care. The 8th wasn't responsibile? Do you think it inspires confidence in women that will access maternity care in Ireland? Savita case was used as a means to promote a fear of being pregnant in irisg hospitals and I think these deaths point to an overall maternity system that is in need of overhaul. We were promised that repeal would also mean greater rights to consent in maternity care. Aims etc have gone quiet on this though as they know the consent issue to intervention is often due to a hospitals active management of labour policy. Joe duffy did a good radio interview show of women this year who had horror stories from maternity hospitals in Ireland. Horror stories that came from a post repeal maternity service.

petalgumdrops wrote:

I often wondered that during the repeal campaign too. So dangerous to have a baby but still many yes voters had babies in this country which I'll also do like I did with my other kids!

Strange that you are happy to engage with maternity services here in light of your comment, plus a few claims you made.

pinkyeye · 19-05-2019 12:41am

petalgumdrops wrote: »

There was a couple of days of stories of which many stories were from this year and the end of 2018. You can search online for them. I must check out the others.

I'll ignore your "told u so" remark!

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

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

petalgumdrops · 19-05-2019 12:46am

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Strange that you are happy to engage with maternity services here in light of your comment, plus a few claims you made.

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

petalgumdrops · 19-05-2019 12:47am

pinkyeye wrote: »

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

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

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

SusieBlue · 19-05-2019 12:48am

petalgumdrops wrote: »

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

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

Plumbthedepths · 19-05-2019 12:49am

petalgumdrops wrote:

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

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

petalgumdrops · 19-05-2019 12:51am

SusieBlue wrote: »

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

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

19-05-2019 12:54am

petalgumdrops wrote: »

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

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

petalgumdrops · 19-05-2019 1:04am

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

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

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

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

Caledonia · 19-05-2019 1:09am

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

Plumbthedepths · 19-05-2019 1:12am

petalgumdrops wrote:

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

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

petalgumdrops wrote:

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

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

petalgumdrops · 19-05-2019 1:13am

DubInMeath wrote: »

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

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

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

petalgumdrops · 19-05-2019 1:16am

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

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

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

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

ToddyDoody · 19-05-2019 1:45am

Is it really any of our business?

cournioni · 19-05-2019 1:53am

54&56 wrote: »

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

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

SusieBlue · 19-05-2019 2:07am

cournioni wrote: »

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

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

cournioni · 19-05-2019 2:39am

SusieBlue wrote: »

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

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

Faugheen · 19-05-2019 3:03am

cournioni wrote: »

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

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

cournioni · 19-05-2019 8:21am

Faugheen wrote: »

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

Just their own?

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-05-2019 8:37am

kaymin wrote: »

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

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

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

kaymin wrote: »

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

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

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

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

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-05-2019 8:37am

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I struggle massively with the removal of the right to life

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

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

petalgumdrops wrote: »

and the potential for mistakes to happen.

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

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

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

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

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

petalgumdrops wrote: »

We never think something will go wrong do we?

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

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

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-05-2019 8:37am

Caledonia wrote: »

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

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

Caledonia wrote: »

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

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

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

That is to say, very little to none.

Faugheen · 19-05-2019 8:50am

cournioni wrote: »

Just their own?

Yes.

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

Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

Comments