Abortion - what is wrong with our health system?

GlynD

The_Hurricane wrote: »

Yes I agree Glynn, some of your posts as of late leave a lot to be desired.

No matter how much I'd like it I can't always be correct or as diplomatic as I'd like to be. I'd hope that you and others who regularly have dialogue with me can read between the lines and understand that I mean no harm.

It's so easy to offend someone online with poorly chosen comments and I'm as guilty of it as the next man or woman. I'm sorry if I've done so in this case.

GlynD

D.A. wrote: »

The very point of a democracy is that people are allowed to hold their own opinions - not everyone has to agree with you (and before you say it, I would vote yes).

The problem comes when it's a minority who make the laws for the majority. By all means protect the rights of the minority, but ensure the majority are also allowed their rights.

Yes I agree. I would argue of course that minority views must be taken into consideration and balance by people outside the argument who can make an unbiased judgement but in this case the logic seems to be with the majority.

I think we'd all agree that many children born with disabilities have superb, enjoyable lives and contribute to society. There is a line however and in this case all that forcing birth would have done would have been to cause pain and suffering to mother and child. The medics say the child was brain dead - how do they know for sure it wouldn't have felt horrendous pain?

I've racked my brain for other options to try and give the pro lifers a chance. Could skull plates have been fitted after the child was born, possibly by caesarian? What quality of life would the child have had. What quality of life would the parents have had.

Damn the cost: life is precious but in this case I agree with the parents. There should have been an exception made.

saverbuyer

A really upsetting and tragic story for the family involved. I really feel for them and hope the young lady in particular can get through this. It really has me questioning my long held beliefs on the topic.

I think part of the issue is that the vast majority of people in N.I. are opposed to abortion in general. In this case there was a very specific set of circumstances that meant the young lady felt she needed to go for an abortion.

The problem with legislation and guidance is that it is a very blunt tool. It is not possible to detail every possible foetal condition that would be exempt from antiabortion legislation. The only option would be to leave the guidance or more likely legislation, sufficiently broad or narrow to include circumstances such as this and let the judiciary decide what cases the exemption would cover. It’s tough and no doubt would be open to abuse.

The only truly effective legislation is simple. Yes or No.

As the Dr. on the programme pointed out, legislation permitting abortion on the grounds of foetal abnormality could permit abortion in the case of a baby with a cleft palate. If we accept we need to change our abortion guidance we have to also accept that there will be cases where abortions are carried out against the sprite of the legislation.

Cotta

Abortion has to be the choice of the mother and father at all times and not some faceless politician.

A difficult subject and I can see both sides of the argument, at a slightly different level teenage pregnancy and resulting abortions is what some here are fearing, however this is a need for better education in our schools.

warmhands.coldheart

saverbuyer wrote: »

.....The problem with legislation and guidance is that it is a very blunt tool. ......

The only truly effective legislation is simple. Yes or No.
.....

Don't agree with this, if done right it can be very effective, but that's the problem, it's hardly ever done right..
they could have it that there has to be a panel of 3 or 4 people, be it Doctors, psychologists, specialists in a specific field and it be a joint Unanimous decision before termination can take place. think the example of having a termination for having a Cleft Pallet was a bit OTT.....

As for the goings on in England recently, another example of Poor Legislation and guidance..

GlynD

warmhands.coldheart wrote: »

Don't agree with this, if done right it can be very effective, but that's the problem, it's hardly ever done right..
they could have it that there has to be a panel of 3 or 4 people, be it Doctors, psychologists, specialists in a specific field and it be a joint Unanimous decision before termination can take place. think the example of having a termination for having a Cleft Pallet was a bit OTT.....

As for the goings on in England recently, another example of Poor Legislation and guidance..

Well exactly: cleft pallete can be easily remedied these days. I think we're all more concerned with seriously deformed babies who have little or no chance of a useful and enjoyable life.

England may be getting it wrong too but they've certainly been better guided since the introduction of the 1967 Abortion Act. That's how far we are out of date.

Hopefully we'll see some sort of reasonable amendment to our own abortion law in the short term as a result of this. I also think questions should be asked about why there was no-one who could make a decision to over-ride the existing law in the case of Sarah Ewart and the other (un-named) mother.

warmhands.coldheart

GlynD wrote: »

...... I also think questions should be asked about why there was no-one who could make a decision to over-ride the existing law in the case of Sarah Ewart and the other (un-named) mother.

Like who, Edwin "Gay couples are not suitable adoptive parents" Poots ? :rotfl::rotfl:
Another joke of a subject... obviously scared the kids might catch that "Gayness" disease....... :rotfl:

GlynD

warmhands.coldheart wrote: »

Like who, Edwin "Gay couples are not suitable adoptive parents" Poots ? :rotfl::rotfl:
Another joke of a subject... obviously scared the kids might catch that "Gayness" disease....... :rotfl:

Not as bad as what some said, Ken Maginnes for example. It is time however that we, as the electorate, made demands of these politicians for changes in archaic laws which inhibit the rights of people along traditional lines.

Gay marriage etc is a different bucket of fish in my view. I accept that progress here is restricted because of the fundamental religious views of all parties but in that they may have it right. Our electorate isn't likely to support such radical changes because let's face it, we are quite a conservative people.

guiriman

warmhands.coldheart wrote: »

:lipsrseal Here we go. can't have and opinion without being discriminative against someone! ....

You're giving an opinion of the person/people not their viewpoint/s, attack the viewpoint all you want, nothing discriminatory in that.

GlynD

guiriman wrote: »

You're giving an opinion of the person/people not their viewpoint/s, attack the viewpoint all you want, nothing discriminatory in that.

It's so easy to post something you think is inoffensive though which others might take offence at. That's the inter-webs for you. I appear to have done it in the last 24 hours and I consider myself relatively inoffensive for the most part.