Legalise abortion

sparkling sea

StealthRolex wrote: »

Why is equality such a problem for some women?

Don't know - I am all for equality

The Corinthian

sparkling sea wrote: »

Don't know - I am all for equality

Selective, it seems.

sparkling sea

The Corinthian wrote: »

Which is why I consider your opinion to be little more than a feminist cliche. An offensive one at that.

The majority of men don't give up or even cut down on their alcohol intake for the 9 months until their baby is born. A study further found that a majority of those who smoke continue to do so for this period. The vast majority of pregnant women stop smoking and drinking.Of the minority who do not over 80% modify their behaviour.

Passive smoke causes problems as does lack of support. If men refuse to be equal with regard to responsibility where they have control, why are they entitled to an equal say on what a women decides is best for her mind and body

Maybe you could give it a little more consideration :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

sparkling sea wrote: »

The majority of men don't give up or even cut down on their alcohol intake for the 9 months until their baby is born. A study further found that a majority of those who smoke continue to do so for this period. The vast majority of pregnant women stop smoking and drinking.Of the minority who do not over 80% modify their behaviour.

Passive smoke causes problems as does lack of support. If men refuse to be equal with regard to responsibility where they have control, why are they entitled to an equal say on what a women decides is best for her mind and body

Maybe you could give it a little more consideration :rolleyes:

That is one of the most moronic arguments I have heard in a while.

Even if you do not accept that there are three parties involved in a pregnancy, you at least seem to acknowledge that there are two, and the consequences of that pregnancy last long after the nine months and yet you seem content with a man being afforded no more than an opinion even though he is likely to have to pay part of the price (be it emotional, financial or both) of that choice, while a woman may choose not to pay that price.

Thank you for your perspective on equality :rolleyes:

sparkling sea

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is one of the most moronic arguments I have heard in a while.

Even if you do not accept that there are three parties involved in a pregnancy, you at least seem to acknowledge that there are two, and the consequences of that pregnancy last long after the nine months and yet you seem content with a man being afforded no more than an opinion even though he is likely to have to pay part of the price (be it emotional, financial or both) of that choice, while a woman may choose not to pay that price.

Thank you for your perspective on equality :rolleyes:

My pleasure

The Corinthian

sparkling sea wrote: »

My pleasure

That would be the having your cake and eat it.

sparkling sea

The Corinthian wrote: »

That would be the having your cake and eat it.

As you appear to be the expert on having your cake and eating it and given that you wouldn't present inaccurate information as fact, I'll have to take your word on this.:D

drkpower

StealthRolex wrote: »

The problem here is trying to predict the future state of mind of the patient.
The best evidence suggests that if the patient is already suicidal then the trauma of an abortion will increase the risk of her completing a suicide later.

Yes; which is why psychiatrists train for years so that they may be qualified to do as well as anyone can do. I am willing to trust the view of one/two of them, whatever is appropriate.

As for the 'best evidence' point, you are speaking in generalities again. You need to deal with each woman individually.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Patients who present with suicidal thoughts are already clinically depressed and as it is known that there are long term depressive tendencies post abortion we would do well to review this more careful before we seek to base it in law. By this I mean that while the Constitution says what it says the legislation does not..

That is simply incorrect. Not everyone who is suicidal is 'clinically depressed'; indeed not everyone who has committed suicide is suffering from psychiatric illness of any kind; some people have committted suicide solely as a consequence of what they considered to be intolerable circumstances. But, as I said, if the view of the psychiatrist(s) was that the woman was likely to be at the same/more risk post-abortion, I certainly would not advocate it.

And I agree, we need to be 'careful'; you are aware though, that abortion on the 'threat' of suicide is entirely legal in this country already.

The Corinthian

sparkling sea wrote: »

As you appear to be the expert on having your cake and eating it and given that you wouldn't present inaccurate information as fact, I'll have to take your word on this.:D

What the Hell is that supposed to mean?

I have simply pointed out that you actually appear to have a pretty warped view of equality, given you did not correct my assumption - it's equality only when it suits you, and that is having your cake and eating it.

robp

drkpower wrote: »

Really? Do you?

A pregnant woman has endometrial cancer; without treatment, her own chances of survival following delivery are 20%. With treatment (which will kill the child), her chances of survival are 60%.

Do you advocate termination in order to institute treatment?

Treatment which happens to kill the child is not comparable to a true abortion. The death of the child is a regrettable side effect, that it all. It should never be referred to as a termination/abortion as it considerably muddies the waters of the debate.

drkpower

robp wrote: »

Treatment which happens to kill the child is not comparable to a true abortion. The death of the child is a regrettable side effect that it all. It should never be referred to as termination or abortion IMO as it considerable muddies the waters of the debate.

You can use whatever terminology you like but the medical terminology for such a situation is abortion. I see your point though; you dont want to 'confuse' 'abortion by choice' with abortion for 'medical reasons'. It is a fair point. Personally I think you cannnot properly and honestly consider one without considering, understanding and challenging your views on the other.

StealthRolex

sparkling sea wrote: »

Don't know - I am all for equality

Then you would agree that the father should have equal rights over the child - both before and after birth.

StealthRolex

drkpower wrote: »

Yes; which is why psychiatrists train for years so that they may be qualified to do as well as anyone can do. I am willing to trust the view of one/two of them, whatever is appropriate.

As for the 'best evidence' point, you are speaking in generalities again. You need to deal with each woman individually.


That is simply incorrect. Not everyone who is suicidal is 'clinically depressed'; indeed not everyone who has committed suicide is suffering from psychiatric illness of any kind; some people have committted suicide solely as a consequence of what they considered to be intolerable circumstances. But, as I said, if the view of the psychiatrist(s) was that the woman was likely to be at the same/more risk post-abortion, I certainly would not advocate it.

And I agree, we need to be 'careful'; you are aware though, that abortion on the 'threat' of suicide is entirely legal in this country already.

In the case of best evidence and how medical research works I feel we must agreed to disagree.

As for the current legal status in this country I am full aware of it. I do not agree with it but then there is much in this country that is legal that I disagree with.

drkpower

StealthRolex wrote: »

In the case of best evidence and how medical research works I feel we must agreed to disagree.

I dont disagree with your position on best evidence or medical research; I am saying that it does not help an individual woman in an individual situation. They should be dealt with....eh..individually.

StealthRolex

drkpower wrote: »

A pregnant woman has endometrial cancer; without treatment, her own chances of survival following delivery are 20%. With treatment (which will kill the child), her chances of survival are 60%.

Do you advocate termination in order to institute treatment?

Treatment is usually instituted without termination as to do otherwise can introduce complications. There is never a case where an an abortion is prescribed before any life saving treatment is administered.

The treatment itself can and usually does cause the pregnancy to fail and the baby dies unless the pregnancy has progressed to the point where there is a chance of the child surviving outside of the womb.

It is not reasonable to associate induced abortion with cancer treatment. Just wanted to clear that up as there aren't any medical cases requiring aggressive treatment that are facilitated by induced abortions of any kind.

StealthRolex

drkpower wrote: »

I dont disagree with your position on best evidence or medical research; I am saying that it does not help an individual woman in an individual situation. They should be dealt with....eh..individually.

That is true however medicine is never a static science and a good doctor should be guided by the best available knowledge.

In the light of the evidence I have already presented I fail to see how an abortion is going to improve the situation as it is not the pregnancy that causes suicidal thoughts but the concept of being pregnant and the effect the patient perceives this has on her life. Psychiatric care and treatment would be better than the trauma of an abortion clinic.

drkpower

StealthRolex wrote: »

Treatment is usually instituted without termination as to do otherwise can introduce complications. There is never a case where an an abortion is prescribed before any life saving treatment is administered..

Im not sure you are referring to Ireland or elsewhere. But in any case, one of the treatments for endometrial (or cervical cancer) is surgery, which necessarily leads to a termination. There are other potential treatments but, in many cases, particularly with cervical, proceeding without early surgery is associated with poorer outcomes.

StealthRolex wrote: »

It is not reasonable to associate induced abortion with cancer treatment. Just wanted to clear that up as there aren't any medical cases requiring aggressive treatment that are facilitated by induced abortions of any kind.

The aggressive treatment IS termination, in many cases, from endometrial and cervical cancer to pre-eclampsia, and many others.

drkpower

StealthRolex wrote: »

That is true however medicine is never a static science and a good doctor should be guided by the best available knowledge.

In the light of the evidence I have already presented I fail to see how an abortion is going to improve the situation as it is not the pregnancy that causes suicidal thoughts but the concept of being pregnant and the effect the patient perceives this has on her life. Psychiatric care and treatment would be better than the trauma of an abortion clinic.

And again, the evidence you have provided is of a general nature. There are individual cases which do not fit in with the generalities. Psychiatric care and treatment is, of course, the optimal. But if a psychiatrist (or two or three) are of the view that a pregnant woman is at a genuine risk of suicide, that it will not be improved substantially by psychiatric treatment and will be resolved/abated by termination, I would favour that being alllowed. Would you? Or do you claim that there is no pregnant woman anywhere whos suicidality would not be resolved/improved following a termination?

StealthRolex

drkpower wrote: »

Im not sure you are referring to Ireland or elsewhere. But in any case, one of the treatments for endometrial (or cervical cancer) is surgery, which necessarily leads to a termination. There are other potential treatments but, in many cases, particularly with cervical, proceeding without early surgery is associated with poorer outcomes.



The aggressive treatment IS termination, in many cases, from endometrial and cervical cancer to pre-eclampsia, and many others.

That is a misrepresentation. While the treatment may cause the death of a child in the womb that is not the primary objective. The primary purpose is to treat the disease.

Can you name any disease where a direct induced abortion is the only known or required treatment?

StealthRolex

drkpower wrote: »

And again, the evidence you have provided is of a general nature. There are individual cases which do not fit in with the generalities. Psychiatric care and treatment is, of course, the optimal. But if a psychiatrist (or two or three) are of the view that a pregnant woman is at a genuine risk of suicide, that it will not be improved substantially by psychiatric treatment and will be resolved/abated by termination, I would favour that being alllowed. Would you? Or do you claim that there is no pregnant woman anywhere whos suicidality would not be resolved/improved following a termination?

The latter. The risks for the future health of the patient greatly outweigh any potential initial improvement. This usual proves to be temporary and increases the risk of a later depressive episodes potential leading to a successful suicide.

While every threat of suicide is serious it must be treated seriously and especially if proved to be due to a clinical cause rather than it being a form of emotional blackmail or an irrational reaction to the pregnancy abortion is not recommended as the risk benefit analysis would not be in the patients favour.

We also know that pregnant women are less likely to suicide when compared with the non-pregnant female population.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1516167/pdf/califmed00072-0012.pdf

We have enough suicides in Ireland already, many of which are probably due to facilities available in the UK. Do we really want to increase our suicide rate?

GarlicBread

Its sad that irish women have to go abroad for abortions. I bet everytime that staff in foreign abortion clinics see irish people come in they think of how much an awful ****hole our country is for discriminating against half the population. We should be kicked out of europe until we stop abusing womens rights. We are almost on par with afganistan, shameful.

Zulu

GarlicBread wrote: »

We are almost on par with afganistan, shameful.

Really?


I'm betting by "almost" you actually mean "not at all".

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

ou may have missed this one, Nozz - Ill give you another go.

I fail to see how the sentence you quoted from me is not already an answer to the question you quoted from yourself. Sorry. Any answer I now give will merely be me just repeating myself.

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Would you eat in that restaurant again?

I am sorry, but I honestly can not see the relevance of my personal eating preferences (which are essentially none of your business aside from being irrelevant) and the type of flesh I prefer the flavour of has a single bearing on the morality of human abortion. I need help here.

If you are asking me if I see any moral difference between eating adult cow, calf, or cow fetus, I am afraid I do not.

StealthRolex

GarlicBread wrote: »

Its sad that irish women have to go abroad for abortions. I bet everytime that staff in foreign abortion clinics see irish people come in they think of how much an awful ****hole our country is for discriminating against half the population. We should be kicked out of europe until we stop abusing womens rights. We are almost on par with afganistan, shameful.

It is even sadder that some people think abortion is good or morally acceptable and that only some human lives can be protected and that other humans can be legally deprived of life.

Noffles

As usual, lets tell women what they can and can't do... ****ing catholics...!!

Motley Crue

SLUSK wrote: »

Abortions should be legalised in Ireland. In the long run it will help bring crime down because potential criminals will not be born. It is a well known fact that poor people commit more crimes, they also have more kids out of wedlock and so on. If these women can have abortions instead it would be good for all of us.

Your argument against abortion is lost, if your theory is correct, it assumes people who have no money feel the need to steal and become criminals, that no one can better themselves

This is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

I am in favour of assessing each individual on their merits and acting accordingly; if the professional assessment is that abortion will substantially reduce their risk of suicide (and there is no other reasonable way of so doing), I would be in favour of it - if not, or if the assessment is that she is likely to be at an increased risk of suicide post-abortion, I would not be in favour.

What if a woman presents saying the continued existence of her husband will lead to a suicide. Should we then terminate her husband?

Clearly the right to life of an individual is NOT altered in relation to the threats a separate individual is making on their own life, so why is it that this is altered when the former individual is a foetus?

I have to plead ignorant on this, but I do not know what current procedure is in a suicide risk patient. Do we incarcerate them until treatment can be applied? Do we treat and then send them home and hope for the best? Or do we just send them home and do nothing?

Whatever it is, assuming someone can enlighten me on it, I then have to ask why can we not do the EXACT same in case of a pregnant woman? If we incarcerate and treat all other suicide risks, for example, why can we not do the same with the pregnant woman… treat her, observe her, protect the baby, and then after birth treat both patients?

I am not trying to get at you here, but I just do not see what changes between a pregnant suicide risk and a normal suicide risk that in one case alters another’s right to life, but in all other cases does not. I am floundering to see the rationale here and need help.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am sorry, but I honestly can not see the relevance of my personal eating preferences (which are essentially none of your business aside from being irrelevant) and the type of flesh I prefer the flavour of has a single bearing on the morality of human abortion. I need help here.

If you are asking me if I see any moral difference between eating adult cow, calf, or cow fetus, I am afraid I do not.

Your question was asking what is the moral difference between a cow and a human.

I'll let you tell me what you think it is so I can understand what you really meant by the question.
You will also need to define what you mean by "moral, and "cow" and "human".

If your question is solely in regards to the abortion of humans then it is morally wrong as the deliberate taking of any human life for the sole purpose of destroying that human is wrong.

drkpower

StealthRolex wrote: »

That is a misrepresentation. While the treatment may cause the death of a child in the womb that is not the primary objective. The primary purpose is to treat the disease.

Oh; you are talking about 'double effect' - a Catholic nonsense. It is a ridiculous concept and is entirely discredited in medical ethics.

But in any case, the primary objective of the treatment in, for instance, pre-eclampsia is to remove the foetus. It is the foetus - or more accurately, its effect on maternal physiology - which is causing the problem.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Can you name any disease where a direct induced abortion is the only known or required treatment?

Medicine should be practiced on the basis of the most effective treatment, not on the basis of whether there is a less effective other treatment available. Termination of pregnancy is, in many cases, the most effective treatment for pre-eclampsia, eclampsia & HELLP syndrome, endometrial and cervical cancer and some other conditions. In some cases of eclampsia & HELLP syndrome, it is the only treatment that will suffice.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not trying to get at you here, but I just do not see what changes between a pregnant suicide risk and a normal suicide risk that in one case alters another’s right to life, but in all other cases does not. I am floundering to see the rationale here and need help.

You need help alright; particularly if you cannot see the difference between the husband-wife relationship and the materno-fetal one. And no, management of suicidality doesnt involve 'incarceration' in most cases, although it could in some.

drkpower

StealthRolex wrote: »

The latter. The risks for the future health of the patient greatly outweigh any potential initial improvement. This usual proves to be temporary and increases the risk of a later depressive episodes potential leading to a successful suicide.

Your view is that there is and could never be a pregnant woman anywhere whose suicidality would not be resolved/improved following a termination?

Fair enough; I think we can put this one to bed now - obviously you are wrong, but Im sure that wont stop you holding that position! Funny that the only case ever before the Supreme Court in which this issue arose, they accepted the evidence that it would. Anyway we can move on from this one - I know where you stand on it....:D

jmbkay

If my young teenage daughter got pregnant, I would take her to England for an abortion, if I knew early enough. I had a baby at 16 and regret not having one. Its fine to be moral and ethical etc., but if it happened to your teenage daughter, what would you do?

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

I see your point though; you dont want to 'confuse' 'abortion by choice' with abortion for 'medical reasons'. It is a fair point. Personally I think you cannnot properly and honestly consider one without considering, understanding and challenging your views on the other.

The user does have a good point though, one which I am surprised I forgot to make.

There moral arguments between killing someone and saving something in such a way that will kill someone are distinct and clear. They are also one of the greyest areas of human morality we know of.

Many tests have been done on this. Many people have been studied on their opinions of flicking a switch to save one person if it will kill another (the old train is about to hit one person for sure, do you flick a switch that will change its track and only possibly kill another person seems to be the one that is closest to what you are asking here about treatment that may cause the baby to die).

A lot of people struggle with this. They baulk at being the one that has committed an act that will kill one person rather than do nothing and kill one person. Many people in such studies prefer to do nothing. Many prefer to take action now and attempt to save the latter soul later. I would be one of those.

As I said before, after a certain point I consider them two equal beings. No different to how I consider man and wife, brother and sister, you and I two equal beings. Where possible the equality of those being has to be protected in my view. However in saying that I also have to concede that we can all come up with fantasy situations where in ANY pair of beings (not limiting this to mother and foetus) there will be a time when one unavoidably has to usurp the other.

Where that line has to be drawn, and what % of risk one must be under before the other is forfeit, I have to admit I honestly do not know. It is a conundrum I clearly have to invest more time in and I will not myself venture an answer to it willy nilly without doing so. It is a conversation worth having.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I fail to see how the sentence you quoted from me is not already an answer to the question you quoted from yourself. Sorry. Any answer I now give will merely be me just repeating myself.

Nozz; you still wont answer a the question and you try and slip your way out of it by claiming you did give an answer. It is cowardly, but sadly typical. You stated that 'termination of one of two equal being should only be done when there is no other choice. Literally no other choice.'

I then gave you a realistic hypothetical to test your view:
A pregnant woman has endometrial cancer; without treatment, her own chances of survival following delivery are 20%. With treatment (which will kill the child), her chances of survival are 60%. Do you advocate termination in order to institute treatment?

You then tell me you answered that..... Are you going to answer or shy away......again?

GarlicBread

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What if a woman presents saying the continued existence of her husband will lead to a suicide. Should we then terminate her husband?

Clearly the right to life of an individual is NOT altered in relation to the threats a separate individual is making on their own life, so why is it that this is altered when the former individual is a foetus?

I have to plead ignorant on this, but I do not know what current procedure is in a suicide risk patient. Do we incarcerate them until treatment can be applied? Do we treat and then send them home and hope for the best? Or do we just send them home and do nothing?

Whatever it is, assuming someone can enlighten me on it, I then have to ask why can we not do the EXACT same in case of a pregnant woman? If we incarcerate and treat all other suicide risks, for example, why can we not do the same with the pregnant woman… treat her, observe her, protect the baby, and then after birth treat both patients?

I am not trying to get at you here, but I just do not see what changes between a pregnant suicide risk and a normal suicide risk that in one case alters another’s right to life, but in all other cases does not. I am floundering to see the rationale here and need help.

The fetus is not a seperate independant person, its an extention of the womans body until it is born and cant survive without her. Thats why it is called an abortion, because the pregnancy is aborted before it becomes a person. Otherwise it would be called murder.

Are you seriously suggesting incarcerating suicidal pregnant women and forceing them to give birth? Please say you didnt mean to say that :eek:.

StealthRolex

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A lot of people struggle with this. They baulk at being the one that has committed an act that will kill one person rather than do nothing and kill one person. Many people in such studies prefer to do nothing. Many prefer to take action now and attempt to save the latter soul later. I would be one of those.

Of course they struggle because you have couched it terms of "killing" when you should be discussing "allowing to die"

For example, a battlefield surgeon only has time to save one life from two equally critically injured solders. Which one should he kill so he has more time to work on the other?

nozzferrahhtoo

Noffles wrote: »

catholics...!!

Actually, this thread has been notable in the fact we have NOT had any religious people in throwing unsubstantiated claims about the existence of god around. All the arguments so far, whether you agree with them or not, have been entirely independent of religious arguments and for that I am grateful.

Zulu

jmbkay wrote: »

what would you do?

I'd encourage her to keep it. Obviously.

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

I'll let you tell me what you think it is so I can understand what you really meant by the question.

I have already answered it for many many pages now over many many weeks. I was curious what YOU think on it. If your approach is to answer a question with a question then so be it, I will just take it you wish not to answer. If you want my answer then just read the first say.... 5 posts I made in this thread, including the essay I linked to in those posts.

StealthRolex

drkpower wrote: »

Oh; you are talking about 'double effect' - a Catholic nonsense. It is a ridiculous concept and is entirely discredited in medical ethics.

But in any case, the primary objective of the treatment in, for instance, pre-eclampsia is to remove the foetus. It is the foetus - or more accurately, its effect on maternal physiology - which is causing the problem.



Medicine should be practiced on the basis of the most effective treatment, not on the basis of whether there is a less effective other treatment available. Termination of pregnancy is, in many cases, the most effective treatment for pre-eclampsia, eclampsia & HELLP syndrome, endometrial and cervical cancer and some other conditions. In some cases of eclampsia & HELLP syndrome, it is the only treatment that will suffice.

The treatment involves delivery, not abortion. Women who present with pre-esclampsia want to continue the pregnancy and are treated with the best drug regime for the conditions until the delivery can be completed successfully. It is not an argument for legalized abortion.

Now, tell me how abortion cures cancer.

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

You need help alright; particularly if you cannot see the difference between the husband-wife relationship and the materno-fetal one. And no, management of suicidality doesnt involve 'incarceration' in most cases, although it could in some.

Come on, I thought we had got past this posturing with comments like „you need help alright“. I am politely and genuinely asking for more information on your position, please be bigger than using that as an opportunity to get a pointless dig in. You’re better than that, I hope and I am not sure who you feel it impresses.

As I said, the rights of others to live do not change just because one individual goes around saying “I will kill myself if you do not kill the other”. I am failing to see the rationale therefore in doing it in this ONE case.

What I DO see is a woman needing treatment and I think we should afford her that treatment.

What I ALSO see is a person threatening to take an action that will endanger the life of another, and normally when such threats are made we DO incarcerate (and then rehabilitate) the person doing the threat. If a woman says she will kill herself (and in doing so kill another being) then all the laws we currently have about one person making threats on the life of another different person should be brought into play, along with affording medical assistance to the woman in question.

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

Nozz; you still wont answer a the question and you try and slip your way out of it by claiming you did give an answer.

I did answer and just because you said I did not does nto mean I did not. Fine if you want me to repeat myself I will. I am never one to turn down a platform when it is offered to me.

I said I would advocate abortion in late term if and only if there is not other courses of treatment open to us.

That, as far as I can see, answers what you asked.

What your fantasy situation is doing is asking me an unanswerable question because it leaves out WAY too much information. How long, for example, is the woman in question along in the pregnancy? One course of treatment might be to induce the birth and do our best to treat, as we do very often, the premature child.

Another is to give the woman the treatment she deserves, and then do our best to save the child later (see my comment about flicking the train tracks).

There is just too much left out of your scenario for me to give any coherant answer.

nozzferrahhtoo

GarlicBread wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting incarcerating suicidal pregnant women and forceing them to give birth? Please say you didnt mean to say that :eek:.

I am merely advocating exercising the SAME laws that we do in ANY situation where one person threatens to take an action that endangers the life of another person.

I am pro-choice, but I do not see why the rights of the baby change merely because of its location. A person EITHER has a right to be protected from the actions of another or it does not. Location is irrelevant.

nozzferrahhtoo

StealthRolex wrote: »

Of course they struggle because you have couched it terms of "killing" when you should be discussing "allowing to die"

For example, a battlefield surgeon only has time to save one life from two equally critically injured solders. Which one should he kill so he has more time to work on the other?

You are right to distinguish between allowing to die and killing. There is a difference.

There is a difference too between my scenario and yours. In mine by saving one you are likely killing the other where the other was under no danger of death. In yours the saving of one allows another that would have died anyway to continue on that path.

In my scenario I would opt to save the first, and THEN do my best to save the second.

In your scenario, I dunno, toss a coin or base your decision on other details you might know about the relative worth of the two soldiers in relation to others, the war effort itself or whatever.

sparkling sea

drkpower wrote: »

Oh; you are talking about 'double effect' - a Catholic nonsense. It is a ridiculous concept and is entirely discredited in medical ethics.

Double Effect, is a set of ethical criteria for evaluating the permissibility of acting - when one’s otherwise legitimate act, - also cause an effect one would normally be obliged to avoid - used in criminal cases were specific intent is not the issue. An example being in a 2002 case it was found that medical treatment may be given to terminally ill patients, although it may hasten death.

drkpower

StealthRolex wrote: »

The treatment involves delivery, not abortion. Women who present with pre-esclampsia want to continue the pregnancy and are treated with the best drug regime for the conditions until the delivery can be completed successfully. It is not an argument for legalized abortion..

Hohoho!
This is the nonsense that Catholics teach to a blind flock. If the foetus is unviable, delivery IS abortion. If delivery is not abortion, can we legalise 'delivery at 10 weeks for social reasons? Its not abortion, after all, if the foetus survives, good luck to it. How can you swallow the rubbish they teach you without gagging?

And you are right re: pre-eclampsia, medical treatment is first line; but if that fails, or appears to be failing, there comes a point at which the safest treatment is abortion.

StealthRolex wrote: »

Now, tell me how abortion cures cancer.

The management of cervical and endometrial cancer includes a surgical option. That surgical option involves removal of the uterus. That involves termination of a pregnancy. Did you need me to tell you that?

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What I DO see is a woman needing treatment and I think we should afford her that treatment.

What I ALSO see is a person threatening to take an action that will endanger the life of another, and normally when such threats are made we DO incarcerate (and then rehabilitate) the person doing the threat. If a woman says she will kill herself (and in doing so kill another being) then all the laws we currently have about one person making threats on the life of another different person should be brought into play, along with affording medical assistance to the woman in question.

1. What if the 'medical treatment' fails and a psychiatrist sees abortion as the only feasible option?
2. For the purposes of the Mental Health Act 2001, a threat to a foetus is not a threat to another person. You can seek to change that, but have a little think about what the repercussions of allowing involuntary detention of mothers who harm their foetus may result in. Then tell me if you want it.
3. Legally, suicidality is a potential reason for involuntary detention; therapeutically it is an option of absolute last resort.

The Corinthian

GarlicBread wrote: »

The fetus is not a seperate independant person, its an extention of the womans body until it is born and cant survive without her. Thats why it is called an abortion, because the pregnancy is aborted before it becomes a person.

A fetus cannot survive outside of an environment that will support it. Neither will an infant. Or neither will we for that matter - take away oxygen and water and see how long we last.

A fetus is not actually an extension of the woman's body, if it was surrogacy or incubators would not be possible. The problem is that we have yet to replace the female uterus with an artificial alternative - however, that should not be confused with suggesting it is or is not independent as ultimately it is - in the right environment a zygote will develop to adulthood, never requiring its biological mother - its the basis of egg donation in IVF.

Otherwise it would be called murder.

That does not follow either. Just because a person dies through direct or indirect action, or inaction, does not make it murder - it can be manslaughter, self-defense, death by misadventure, to name a few. In war we even praise one's capacity to kill others.

Similarly, if a man requires a lung transplant from you to live, and you refuse, that does not make you a murderer - the right to life is not a simple black and white affair.

As I've previously stated, I believe this debate is too obsessed with humanizing or dehumanizing the fetus, mainly because emotively we find it easier to limit the discussion to that.

Are you seriously suggesting incarcerating suicidal pregnant women and forceing them to give birth? Please say you didnt mean to say that :eek:

It comes down to if the fetus is a 'person' and if, as a person, their right to life supersedes the rights of the woman over her body. And then there is the issue of the rights of the father, who has no recourse if he wants the child or not. If an abortion makes him suicidal, then that's his tough. If being forced to become a father makes him suicidal, then that's his tough too.

Such hypocrisy makes it hard for me to sympathize with a 'suicidal pregnant woman'.

sparkling sea

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What I ALSO see is a person threatening to take an action that will endanger the life of another, and normally when such threats are made we DO incarcerate (and then rehabilitate) the person doing the threat. If a woman says she will kill herself (and in doing so kill another being) then all the laws we currently have about one person making threats on the life of another different person should be brought into play, along with affording medical assistance to the woman in question.

We rehabilitate a person that may commit an action that will endanger another - however the unborn is not classed as a full person.

Some people are implying the a feotus has legal rights equal to that of a person this is not the case in reality, so their arguement is based on a false premise

The baby O case in 2002 centered on the deportation of a pregnant woman who claimed her unborn child was a separate person and should be treated as so in Irish law, however it was found that Article 2 did not apply to the unborn and the unborn was not a separate person.

Another example would be if I choose to take a child that I had given birth too, to another country to be murdered I would not be allowed too and rightly so because the Human Rights of all people are equal.

The 2007 D case involved the right to travel, a 17 year old pregnant girl in the care of the HSE. The foetus could not survive after birth, the girl wanted an abortion but refused to say she was suicidal to procure an abortion. The court found there was no law to stop her traveling and she did not need the courts permission to do so. The feotus does not have rights in reality, it is solely dependent on the woman for survival and does not have its own separate rights and the courts cannot interfer with her freely made choices.