Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Silvio.Dante

PopePalpatine wrote: »

In this scenario, delivering the baby will leave the mother debilitated. You have a choice - abort the pregnancy, or cripple the mother. Choose.

So you kill the baby in the womb right? How do you then remove the body from the womb..?

Silvio.Dante

I'm off to bed now but the answers frome advocates for aborting a 34 pregnancy when it can be delivered alive should be interesting...

Flier

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I'm off to bed now but th answers frome advocates for aborting a 34 pregnancy when it can be delivered alive should be interesting...

I'd just like to know why you are so against legislation to support women who's life is in danger to have a life saving abortion.

Sleep easy Silvio.

_rebelkid

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I think you're saying you could countenance partial birth abortions.

Thats pretty disgusting dude, even for an abortion advocate, seriously...

All I did was accept the maths. As with everything, there is always the possibility, which in this case is probably very slim, that taking the set course of action will result in the best outcome.

I have never once said I am in favour of partial birth abortions, I only accepted the maths.

iguana

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Would you have a problem if a woman needed an abortion at 34 weeks, not to save her life, but because she would be left seriously debilitated as a result?

Nodin wrote: »

So you don't cripple the woman...?

Um, can't believe I'm typing this but Silvio is right in this instance. There would be no need to abort in this scenario. If a situation arose where a woman at 34 weeks pregnant needed to not be pregnant in a hurry, the fastest and safest way to achieve this would in all likelihood be to deliver the baby by c-section, possibly under a general anaesthetic. A healthy foetus at 32 weeks gestation will almost always survive and suffer no long term health problems. And a c-section delivery, while major surgery, would most probably be less strenuous on the woman than such a late term abortion.

I'm open to correction but I really can't imagine any scenario in which it would make sense to terminate the foetus before delivery in order to preserve the mother's health. Maybe someone like Flier, who knows a lot more about this than I do, would know?

Nodin

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I'm off to bed now but the answers frome advocates for aborting a 34 pregnancy when it can be delivered alive should be interesting...

The hypothetical was that there was a choice to be made between either the health of the mother or the baby.

Kiwi in IE

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Oh yes. I already acknowledged your brutal honesty in your acceptance of abortions up to full term and refusal to even find a partial birth abortion unacceptable.

It takes some kind of brutality to deem such horror acceptable...

Don't be ridiculous Silvio. If a pregnancy needs to be terminated after the foetus can survive independently it will be incubated. This occurs around 22 to 23 weeks. What is this 'partial birth abortion' nonsense? Something that happens with coat hangers in religious third world countries where abortion is illegal I imagine!

Lingua Franca

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intact_dilation_and_extraction#Partial-birth_abortion

The term "partial-birth abortion" is primarily used in political discourse — chiefly regarding the legality of abortion in the United States. The term is not recognized as a medical term by the American Medical Association nor the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. This term was first suggested in 1995 by Congressman Charles T. Canady, while developing the original proposed Partial-Birth Abortion Ban. According to Keri Folmar, the lawyer responsible for the bill's language, the term was developed in early 1995 in a meeting among herself, Charles T. Canady, and National Right to Life Committee lobbyist Douglas Johnson. Canady could not find this particular abortion practice named in any medical textbook, and therefore he and his aides named it. "Partial-birth abortion" was first used in the media on 4 June 1995 in a Washington Times article covering the bill

It's a political football invented by the American pro life lobby and been made illegal, with no evidence that it's ever even been a practice. Feel free to disregard.

The Mad Hatter

I think Silvio's realised he lost the moral ground when he said - with much parsing - that he'd be happy to cripple a woman for the sake of forcing her to carry a child to term. And he's trying to regain it by introducing a rather absurd hypothetical about 34-week partial-birth abortions.

Kiwi in IE

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Hows about you then.

In theory would you support a more liberal abortion regime beyond X?
If so would you impose a cetain time limit or would you do an Obama and say a partial birth abortion should be a decision made between the mother and her physician..?

I'll answer this! Much more liberal than X! Personally I'd like to see on demand until 12 weeks. Yes, this means if a woman presents at an abortion clinic and says "I'm pregnant and don't want to be", no questions will be asked. After 12 weeks, if there is a reason it wasn't dealt with earlier, for example 14 year old rape victim, too scared to tell anyone and get help in time, or the woman's health is at risk; fine up until the foetus can survive in an incubator, after that; induction or caesarean section and incubator. At all stages until removal from the womans body, her life and long term health comes first unless she has chosen otherwise!

Sarky

Yes, I'd happily see a more liberal stance than the X case legislation. And when the X case legislation is passed later this year (and it will, despite the mewling protestations of Youth Defence), I'll happily push for just that.

I'd be perfectly happy to see abortion fully legalised up until brain activity. You can't think or feel pain if you have nothing to think or feel pain with. After that, it depends on the situation, but that's a fair amount of time for people to discover an unwanted pregnancy and make a decision, without any new human life being created, so it should cover most cases. It really should be done as a matter of routine when there's a threat to the mother's life or health, or the foetus is non-viable, and I'm pretty disgusted that groups like Youth Defence and the Catholic Church have fought so viciously to keep that from happening.

If anyone wants to go down the "OMG YOU WAENT 2 KILL PEOPLE IN TEH COMAZ" road, kindly shove it up yer jacksy. I'm also disappointed that none of us have the right to die with dignity on our own terms, as recent court rulings have pointed out.

If that makes me a monster in the eyes of someone so completely divorced from reality that they think abortion is always wrong no matter what, then go ahead and get your torches and pitchforks kids.


See Silvio, what I did there was answer a question in full, using my own opinions. No attempts at diversion, no stupid flippant smiley faces. Would you do us the courtesy of posting in a similar manner from now on instead of the spam you've been pushing, please?

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Sad isn't it when the belly of the Liberalista Beast is revealed and is more unattractive than the loper O'Duffy...

What?

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

If the innocent neanderthal baby being present in the womb direstly endangers the life of the woman then a termination would be justifiable while unintentionally resulting in the death of the neanderyhal.

I never thought I'd be typing this when I got up this morning...:D

Would you have the same disregard for the neanderthal baby dying as you seem t have for human babies..?

Is the Neanderthal not worthy of being protected? What if it was half homo sapiens?

Where did I show disregard for human babies exactly? I didn't waste money on fancy placards and free coaches while children in this country are going hungry and, if 2011 is any indication, over 2 million children will die of malnutrition globally this year.

'Sorry starving children, but we must spend all these yankee dollars on full colour placards and hi-vis vests to protect the future for fetus' who haven't been conceived yet' - THAT is disregarding human babies.

I place the life of an existing person above that of a fetus -

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Robin, I've been compared to Jimmy Saville, called a traitor and have been demanded to answer a hypothetical about a neanderthal baby in the womb...:D

I give as good as i get and usually do so with a smile and don't take myself too seriously.

If I'm banned from here then so be it. But lets call it as it is...:)

Technically , you are conspiring with people from a foreign jurisdiction to subvert the Constitution of the Irish republic and thereby advocating undermining the very legal fabric of the State- you may not like the technical term for people who do that but if the cap fits...

'Traitor: One who betrays one's country, a cause, or a trust, especially one who commits treason.'

Treason: 1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

Your smiley faces do not disguise what you are advocating indeed they underscore your contempt for the health and welfare of women.



Still trying to commit Suicide by MOD I see.

Silvio.Dante

_rebelkid wrote: »

All I did was accept the maths. As with everything, there is always the possibility, which in this case is probably very slim, that taking the set course of action will result in the best outcome.

I have never once said I am in favour of partial birth abortions, I only accepted the maths.

How very Jesuitical of you...;)

Silvio.Dante

iguana wrote: »

Um, can't believe I'm typing this but Silvio is right in this instance. There would be no need to abort in this scenario. If a situation arose where a woman at 34 weeks pregnant needed to not be pregnant in a hurry, the fastest and safest way to achieve this would in all likelihood be to deliver the baby by c-section, possibly under a general anaesthetic. A healthy foetus at 32 weeks gestation will almost always survive and suffer no long term health problems. And a c-section delivery, while major surgery, would most probably be less strenuous on the woman than such a late term abortion.

That would be my understanding also.

Yet some seem to think killing the baby at 34 weeks is preferrable. Amazing...

Silvio.Dante

Nodin wrote: »

The hypothetical was that there was a choice to be made between either the health of the mother or the baby.

Do you think killing the baby and then delivering him/her is preferrable..?

Silvio.Dante

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous Silvio. If a pregnancy needs to be terminated after the foetus can survive independently it will be incubated. This occurs around 22 to 23 weeks. What is this 'partial birth abortion' nonsense? Something that happens with coat hangers in religious third world countries where abortion is illegal I imagine!

I'm widening the scenario.

Lets say there is no risk to life or indeed health of the mother and she seeks an abortion for financial reasons at 32 weeks. Could you countenance allowing it to go ahead in an Irish setting..?

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

That would be my understanding also.

Yet some seem to think killing the baby at 34 weeks is preferrable. Amazing...

Some seem to think that condemning a woman to brain damage/psychosis/reduced life expectancy/death is preferable to terminating a clump of cells incapable of living independently.....Amazing.

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

I'm widening the scenario.

Lets say there is no risk to life or indeed health of the mother and she seeks an abortion for financial reasons at 32 weeks. Could you countenance allowing it to go ahead in an Irish setting..?

I thought you were focusing on X?

But then that wouldn't allow you to introduce these red herrings now would it?

Silvio.Dante

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I'll answer this! Much more liberal than X! Personally I'd like to see on demand until 12 weeks. Yes, this means if a woman presents at an abortion clinic and says "I'm pregnant and don't want to be", no questions will be asked. After 12 weeks, if there is a reason it wasn't dealt with earlier, for example 14 year old rape victim, too scared to tell anyone and get help in time, or the woman's health is at risk; fine up until the foetus can survive in an incubator, after that; induction or caesarean section and incubator. At all stages until removal from the womans body, her life and long term health comes first unless she has chosen otherwise!

Thank you for the honest and open answer.

Im' expecting a range of different answers on this question which is normal.

Out of interest how does it sit with you that if at 27 weeks the woman wishes for the baby to be aborted (not exist anymore) that you would insist on the baby be givne evey chance of survival.

Going directly against the wishes of the woman in question..?

Silvio.Dante

Sarky wrote: »

Yes, I'd happily see a more liberal stance than the X case legislation. And when the X case legislation is passed later this year (and it will, despite the mewling protestations of Youth Defence), I'll happily push for just that.

I'd be perfectly happy to see abortion fully legalised up until brain activity. You can't think or feel pain if you have nothing to think or feel pain with.

And once brain activity commences you would refuse an abortion if requested..?

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I thought you were focusing on X?

But then that wouldn't allow you to introduce these red herrings now would it?

Sorry in advance if bringing up these scenarios makes you uncomfortable.

Others don't seem to have a problem in answering. Feel free to ignore if you so choose...:)

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Sorry in advance if bringing up these scenarios makes you uncomfortable.

Others don't seem to have a problem in answering. Feel free to ignore if you so choose...:)

Tell you what Silvio.

Why don't you answer all the questions put to you without resorting to one line bits of rhetoric first - then I will answer your questions.

Let's start with this one:

Is it preferable to deny a woman vital medication causing long term damage to her physical and/or mental health to protect a fetus?

No rhetoric now, or one liners lifted from some pro-life pamphlet. Do you - Silvio - believe it is preferable and why?

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Tell you what Silvio.

Why don't you answer all the questions put to you without resorting to one line bits of rhetoric first - then I will answer your questions.

Let's start with this one:

Is it preferable to deny a woman vital medication causing long term damage to her physical and/or mental health to protect a fetus?

No rhetoric now, or one liners lifted from some pro-life pamphlet. Do you - Silvio - believe it is preferable and why?

No one has been denied their meds. Ergo an irrelevant scenario I'd have thought and a ridiculous one to boot...

Do you want to give my one a go?

Would you legislate beyond X..? If so would you put a limit on term or allow abortion up to full term..?

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

No one has been denied their meds. Ergo an irrelevant scenario I'd have thought and a ridiculous one to boot...

Answer the question Silvio.

Is it preferable to deny a woman vital medication causing long term damage to her physical and/or mental health to protect a fetus?

MrPudding

Nice article in The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/22/roe-v-wade-40-american-women-abortion

MrP

Kiwi in IE

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Thank you for the honest and open answer.

Im' expecting a range of different answers on this question which is normal.

Out of interest how does it sit with you that if at 27 weeks the woman wishes for the baby to be aborted (not exist anymore) that you would insist on the baby be givne evey chance of survival.

Going directly against the wishes of the woman in question..?

For me the foetus BEGINS to have rights separate to the woman carrying it when it can live independently. Thanks to modern medical technology, that can now be as early as around 22 weeks (not 100% certain but around this time). In the ridiculous and unlikely situation that a woman wanted to terminate a pregnancy for financial reasons at 34 or 27 weeks (you asked my opinion on both dates), I think it is appropriate that medical professionals and counsellors do their best to encourage her to continue to term (another 6 odd weeks), and then adopt. If due to some highly unlikely circumstance, this is impossible/unacceptable to her, then she should be given the choice between induction or c section which will result in a live birth and the appropriate neo natal care then provided prior to adoption.

You clearly have a very poor opinion of women if you think there will be 'floodgates' of women continuing with a pregnancy for 34 weeks and then wanting to terminate for financial reasons. Not going to happen. Have a look at research from countries with abortion on demand (ie every other western country) and see what the incidence of this situation are.

On the other hand I believe that the moment the feotus is born and separate from its mother, is the moment it has FULL rights as a baby separate to her rights. Not before. This does not mean I think she can request that it's life be terminated once it can live independently, but she can request its removal from her body if necessary. And unless she requests otherwise, her rights and life come first until the moment of full birth. If for some highly unlikely reason, the only way to save her life is to terminate that of the fetus, unless she has requested otherwise, that is what should happen. For me this applies until the moment of birth.

Quite obviously the majority of pregnant women want a child, and will most likely share her rights with the foetus. Many women (including myself dependent on situation) would be willing to sacrifice their long term health in exchange for bringing the foetus to term. But that is her choice. Not the governments, the Catholic Church's and not yours!

Prior to 12 weeks I don't believe a reason even needs to be provided unless the woman chooses to provide one.

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Answer the question Silvio.

Is it preferable to deny a woman vital medication causing long term damage to her physical and/or mental health to protect a fetus?

No one has been denied Meds in such situations. A ridiculous Straw Man.

I don't do straw as you may have noticed, despite your shouting...:)

Now, I'll try one more time. Would you support a more liberal abortion regime beyond X? If so would you grant abortions up to full term. If not, why not..?

Silvio.Dante

MrPudding wrote: »

Nice article in The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/22/roe-v-wade-40-american-women-abortion

MrP

Direct quote.."To deny us the fundamental right to those bodies – to our most intimate parts, to some of our most life-altering functions – is to deny us our humanity."

So this lady feels that killing unwanted babies as an expression of her humanity. Barbaric...:(

Dades

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

No one has been denied their meds. Ergo an irrelevant scenario I'd have thought and a ridiculous one to boot...

If you want people to respond to *your* hypothetical scenarios - which many have - then you need to be prepared to reciprocate.

That you find the scenario unlikely or uncomfortable matters not.

Silvio.Dante

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

For me the foetus BEGINS to have rights separate to the woman carrying it when it can live independently. Thanks to modern medical technology, that can now be as early as around 22 weeks (not 100% certain but around this time). In the ridiculous and unlikely situation that a woman wanted to terminate a pregnancy for financial reasons at 34 or 27 weeks (you asked my opinion on both dates), I think it is appropriate that medical professionals and counsellors do their best to encourage her to continue to term (another 6 odd weeks), and then adopt. If due to some highly unlikely circumstance, this is impossible/unacceptable to her, then she should be given the choice between induction or c section which will result in a live birth and the appropriate neo natal care then provided prior to adoption.

You clearly have a very poor opinion of women if you think there will be 'floodgates' of women continuing with a pregnancy for 34 weeks and then wanting to terminate for financial reasons. Not going to happen. Have a look at research from countries with abortion on demand (ie every other western country) and see what the incidence of this situation are.

On the other hand I believe that the moment the feotus is born and separate from its mother, is the moment it has FULL rights as a baby separate to her rights. Not before. This does not mean I think she can request that it's life be terminated once it can live independently, but she can request its removal from her body if necessary. And unless she requests otherwise, her rights and life come first until the moment of full birth. If for some highly unlikely reason, the only way to save her life is to terminate that of the fetus, unless she has requested otherwise, that is what should happen. For me this applies until the moment of birth.

Quite obviously the majority of pregnant women want a child, and will most likely share her rights with the foetus. Many women (including myself dependent on situation) would be willing to sacrifice their long term health in exchange for bringing the foetus to term. But that is her choice. Not the governments, the Catholic Church's and not yours!

Prior to 12 weeks I don't believe a reason even needs to be provided unless the woman chooses to provide one.

Thanks again for the detailed response.

Clearly you differ greatly with rebelkid and Nodin for example.

While your views are still still an athema to where I come from on the scale its interesting that you would deny a woman her directly expressed wish to take the life of the baby at 27 weeks.

Many within the Feminist movement would rail against such deprivation (as they would see it)...