Another abortion referendum?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T McGibney said:
Why change the subject?

.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to change the subject, you brought up the article yesterday and now you're debating with Dereko about whether the author investigated herself or not. But surely it's important to debate what's in the article too.

In any case I've reread the article now and it's quite clear that the anti abortion people (presumable Youth Defence, Life Institute, Iona etc - we don't know because they have not declared themselves but one can take an educated guess) supplied the reporter with some tapes. Not sure if they are all the tapes they made but the reporter based her article on that. It would be important to know for example if women were given all options, such as adoption and help to deal with continuing a pregnancy and were these deleted from the tapes.

I think we have a right to question the motives of those who are doing investigations in these circumstances and supplying it to journalists and I wonder is it legal for them to have done so and why are they hiding behind the name 'pro life movement' instead of allowing the reporter to name them.
 

Note that I haven't debated anything with @dereko. He has made allegations and I merely queried his source or basis for same.

I originally referenced the Indo story in response to another poster's "nobody will ever tell lies" claim. Funny how the reaction was an attempt to discredit the provenance of the story without addressing the issue that was actually being discussed.
 
T McGibney said:
Have you a source for these assertions?
Click to expand...

It's an opinion. She has never stated that she saw the entire footage, and could not do so, as she was only shown five hours of footage. She has never stated that she asked to see further footage, which would be a starting point.

Now I'm basing all this on the articles, in none of which she seems to have investigated those who provided the footage, nor queried their motives.

You can believe everything she's written, I'm choosing not to given the dearth of actual research she has aluded to in her articles.
 
As many of you have no doubt been following we know know that a termination was asked for. Whether it would have saved a life we do not know. But it is clear the new legislation will not solve the issue of a women's health or any many other mirad of important reasons that we Irish people cannot deal with. It will not change the women travelling to the UK, so that's ok then I guess so I've no idea what the likes of YD/Iona etc are getting so worked up about. They meanwhile are raking in the cash dollars.

Two points about the governement debates that were not clear to me:

Did any of the 150,000 women who have had abortions in the UK give evidence or any of their partners or any of their children or relations? Any of the women who gave their harrowing stories on the Joe Duffy show and elsewhere?

Did anyone ask the medical profession how many women are referred to the UK for termination by them and under what circumstances?

As this is so much a women's issue, we have had since this errupted, the truly appalling Indian rape and death case, which has certainly opened my eyes to what goes on in that country in relation to it's respect of women and then while I pondered deeply on that, and thought about how come women are valued at so little, we have our very own very distressing rape/incest case and the travesty of that, since put to right some might say, but the damage is done, what woman would go to court, what women would let her daughter go to court. A Pandora's box perhaps without Elpis.
 
Bronte said:
I've no idea what the likes of YD/Iona etc are getting so worked up about. They meanwhile are raking in the cash dollars.
Click to expand...
No idea? The pro-life side oppose any legislation for the same reason the the pro-choice side supports it; both sides believe that it will open the door to abortion (for clarity: the direct and intentional killing of the unborn) in Ireland.

As to cash dollars, I'm surprised that you seem unaware of who really chucks the big bucks around, and to whom that money goes.
Bronte said:
. . the truly appalling Indian rape and death case, which has certainly opened my eyes to what goes on in that country in relation to it's respect of women . .
Click to expand...
You can add gendercide to that.
 

That entire webpage is worth a read: http://www.broadsheet.ie/2013/01/23/medical-notes-weirdness/

Also this:
[broken link removed]

Everything still clear as mud.
 
51% likelyhood of dying before action can be taken to save your life

Where do doctors get the percentage that a pregnant woman has to have a 51% chance of dying before they will intervene to save her life? Do they learn this in medical school, is it in the medical guidelines or does it depend on the hospital. Do all hospitals have the same percentage or is 51% unique to Galway. Or does it depend on the doctor. What above doctors trained abroad, how do they learn of this percentage.

Is there any other area of medicine where one hangs around and waits and watches a women detoriate until they will intervene to a level of likelyhood of death of 51%?
 
id say its 51% across the board in all hospitals, cant see galway having special rules of its own.
 
Bronte said:
Where do doctors get the percentage that a pregnant woman has to have a 51% chance of dying before they will intervene to save her life?
Click to expand...

Sounds like a gross misrepresentation of the actual position.

Bronte said:
f medicine where one hangs around and waits and watches a women detoriate until they will intervene to a level of likelyhood of death of 51%?
Click to expand...
Definitely a gross misrepresentation of the actual position.
 
Is it though? The constitution provides for the "equal" right to life of the "unborn". If both if equal rights and a "substantial" risk to the life of the mother is required, I can easily see how the doctor felt that the risk had to be 51% to the mother to justify a termination.

This ties into the testimony of Dr Rhona Mahony to the Dail committee where she queried what is meant by "substantial" risk and noted that from her experience, one person may think a risk of 20% was too substantial to continue with a pregnancy but another would be willing to accept that risk.
 
Almost 25 years after JPII came to Ireland to peddle his misogynistic views on womens right to choose, we are still debating the 8th amendment to our constitution.

Sad to see the church still has such a stranglehold on womens rights in Ireland.

Will we never get rid of the influence of the horrid little Priesteeen?
 

She, and her peers, are eminent professionals who are each handsomely paid to make such decisions. The extremely low rates of Irish maternity mortality clearly indicate that between them they are doing an excellent job in that regard, but the pro-abortion cheerleaders claim expectant mothers are dying like flies. Make of that what you will.

Now the nonsense of "51% risk" is being cited.

If our eminent consultant physicians ever studied English in school they will know that "a real and substantial risk" does not axiomatically equate to a 51% risk. (Note that risk assessment and quantification aren't exactly unknown in professional public administration, the risk of abscondment in bail cases, and the risk of recividism in parole cases being but two examples.)

And even if they didn't, a €10 dictionary will put them right.

A lot cheaper, and less bloody, than bringing in abortion at the behest of a loud minority.
 
T McGibney said:
A lot cheaper, and less bloody, than bringing in abortion at the behest of a loud minority.
Click to expand...


What "loud minority"?

The plain people of Ireland voted for abortion after the X case

The church doesnt like it, so they keep stirring it up time and again
 
T McGibney said:
Sounds like a gross misrepresentation of the actual position.


Definitely a gross misrepresentation of the actual position.
Click to expand...

How is what I've posted a gross misrepresentation of the actual position. Do you not think that a doctor who has testified that she had to wait until there was a 51% risk of death is telling the truth. Or do you think she was incorrect? Or do you think her particular 'interpretation' of the law was incorrect?

________________________

In relation to the law, why do doctors have to think of the law in this area instead of making a clinical decision on what is best for the pregnant woman. It doesn't seem right that doctors have to concentrate on interpreting Supreme court judgements, 1800's legislation and medical council guidelines before concentrating on the medical issues. Maybe doctors need a lawyer by their side in the the operating room.
 

And of course the women herself has no say whatever is what is an acceptable risk to her. Which will not be changed by legislating for X.

How can it be right that a woman has no input into a decision that could be life threatening for her ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register