Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Sin City

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm not sure how common that scenario is - why would a C-section not work if the child is that developed?

But to answer your question: Conflicted as you say. But unless I was the woman involved it's not my decision. The woman (hopefully with the support of those who love her) would have to make that awful decision. If it was me - I'd choose to live.

If it was a choice between your wife and your unborn child? Who would you choose?

See, this is why we need clear legislation and not this 'export for foreign solutions' situation we currently have.

As I said, I realise its unrealistic ,but again humour me

Woman is not conscious at the moment, baby is more or less ready to come out , c section isnt an option , but its your call

28064212

Sin City wrote: »

Mother is unconscious or under anesthetic who would you choose and why
Remember the child can survive independently at this stage if taken out

Next-of-kin, same as any medical decision. Why the fixation with not allowing people to decide what's right for them?

doctoremma

Sin City wrote: »

As I said, I realise its unrealistic ,but again humour me

Woman is not conscious at the moment, baby is more or less ready to come out , c section isnt an option , but its your call

Then woman. Every time.

dharma200

Why would anyone have an opinion on a completely unrealistic scenario. If the scenario is totally impossible then the opinon is totally pointless imho

Bannasidhe

Sin City wrote: »

As I said, I realise its unrealistic ,but again humour me

Woman is not conscious at the moment, baby is more or less ready to come out , c section isnt an option , but its your call

Sin, that's so unrealistic its like asking me what I would do if aliens landed. How could that ever be my call? But, to play along- I choose the woman.

Now it's your call - do you choose your wife or the unborn child?

Sin City

doctoremma wrote: »

Then woman. Every time.

Finally someone gave me an answer rather than debate the actual scenario which I said wasnt going to be a prefect one and to just humour me for the sake of a debate. Thanks Dr Emma


Im assuming its because she is an actual person, right but if the child was saved it would become an actual child instantly

Sin City

28064212 wrote: »

Next-of-kin, same as any medical decision. Why the fixation with not allowing people to decide what's right for them?

Because I asked for your opinion

Your the next of kin

IT-Guy

Sin City wrote: »

How I feel , conflicted


Let me ask you this

Say the child was almost fit to be born, was more or less a fully formed baby, just adding on the last few pounds and ounces before birth, perfectly healthy but suddenly a scenario arose where the birth would kill the mother

Which would you save?

Agree with doctoremma here, mother first. If the birth will cause the death of the mother then her life should be saved. Depending on the issue causing the risk to her life, there may be an option in the future for the mother to try again or failing that, to adopt. I've stated this in previous abortion debates, I'd rather deal with the living than worry about the dead or unborn.

oldrnwisr

Sin City wrote: »

Even though personhood exists the only thing is the baby is still in the womb, but could be birthed anyday naturally is a baby in everyway except its still inside

We are well passed the permitted limit for abortions

You are posing not only as seamus said, an unrealistic hypothetical but an impossible one. In situations which pose a grave threat to the life of the mother (in the UK at least) abortion is legal past the 24-week limit. In fact in 2010, 147 such abortions were performed.

I understand what you're trying to get at but I don't see that either answer has any bearing on the overall debate.

Oh, and for the record, I choose to save the mother. It's rather obvious. You are talking about a threat to a living breathing person who could potentially (depending on the medical circumstances) have another child in the not too distant future versus potentially (again depending on circumstances) leaving a child orphaned.

doctoremma

Sin City wrote: »

Im assuming its because she is an actual person, right but if the child was saved it would become an actual child instantly

That's part of it. But she's not only an actual person, she's an actual person with a life, with a family, with memories, with emotions and struggles and victories and losses. As far as I can ascertain, a baby has none of these to lose, or to be lost from the world.

coffee_cake

IT-Guy wrote: »

Really? Got a linky for that, would love to read up on it?

I don't especially as I'm at work and can't google it, but I remember reading that the guy admitted in an interview at some stage it wasn't real
if you have a look you should hopefully find it

Sin City

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sin, that's so unrealistic its like asking me what I would do if aliens landed. How could that ever be my call? But, to play along- I choose the woman.

Now it's your call - do you choose your wife or the unborn child?

dharma200 wrote: »

Why would anyone have an opinion on a completely unrealistic scenario. If the scenario is totally impossible then the opinon is totally pointless imho

Ok lets say its Cancer and the chemo will kill the child and save you


Or a car accident where there is massive blood loss and either the baby or the woman can be saved (I hope thats more realistic)

Bannasidhe

Sin City wrote: »

Finally someone gave me an answer rather than debate the actual scenario which I said wasnt going to be a prefect one and to just humour me for the sake of a debate. Thanks Dr Emma


Im assuming its because she is an actual person, right but if the child was saved it would become an actual child instantly

Ahem!

I debate the scenario and gave you an answer.

Now can I have an answer - your wife or the unborn child?

28064212

Sin City wrote: »

Because I asked for your opinion

Your the next of kin

My wife. You?

Do you think I should be allowed to decide for you? Or do you think it should be up to the individual in the tragic circumstances?

christmas2012

Ahem!

I debate the scenario and gave you an answer.

Now can I have an answer - your wife or the unborn child?

bannasidhe,you are using the argument of emergency abortion to legislate for abortion on demand for all..

IT-Guy

Sin City wrote: »

As I said, I realise its unrealistic ,but again humour me

Woman is not conscious at the moment, baby is more or less ready to come out , c section isnt an option , but its your call

Yup, woman every time too. My view on having a child is to have them with the person you love, not have the person you love serve as an incubator to pass on your progeny regardless of what happens to her. No way would I want to have my (fictitious) wife give birth if it meant her dying.

Sin City

IT-Guy wrote: »

Agree with doctoremma here, mother first. If the birth will cause the death of the mother then her life should be saved. Depending on the issue causing the risk to her life, there may be an option in the future for the mother to try again or failing that, to adopt. I've stated this in previous abortion debates, I'd rather deal with the living than worry about the dead or unborn.

I know what your saying but there is a fine line between living an unborn here.
The baby would be born if its saved, its already living and can live independently from the mother so in its very much alive

Bannasidhe

christmas2012 wrote: »

bannasidhe,you are using the argument of emergency abortion to legislate for abortion on demand for all..

christmas - I am not. You are twisting my words to suit your agenda and I do not appreciate that so kindly stop.

christmas2012

There are two sepearate issues here

1 is emergency abortion - (but it should not be used as an argument for abortion for all)

2 abortion for all


I agree with 1 and completely disagree with 2.

28064212

christmas2012 wrote: »

bannasidhe,you are using the argument of emergency abortion to legislate for abortion on demand for all..

Where is she doing that? Specify which posts exactly

Bannasidhe

Sin City wrote: »

I know what your saying but there is a fine line between living an unborn here.
The baby would be born if its saved, its already living and can live independently from the mother so in its very much alive

Sin - fair is fair, we have answered. Now for the 3rd time Who do YOU chose - your wife or the unborn child?

christmas2012

christmas - I am not. You are twisting my words to suit your agenda and I do not appreciate that so kindly stop.

Theres no need to get hysterical asking me to stop,i didnt twist anything,you posed a scenario,you are in effect arguing for abortion for all and using emergency abortion as the scenario,ive read many of your posts and it seems no matter what the circumstance you are very pro abortion.

let me ask you have you ever had an abortion,or had close friends who have had abortions,i can tell you ones who have had,would not describe having an abortion as a positive experience(its a painful procedure,with risk of infection).Full stop.

doctoremma

christmas2012 wrote: »

There are two sepearate issues here

1 is emergency abortion - (but it should not be used as an argument for abortion for all)

2 abortion for all


I agree with 1 and completely disagree with 2.

Same here. Nobody here (if I may be so bold as to speak on their behalf) thinks "abortion for all" is a good or right thing.

Sin City

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Oh, and for the record, I choose to save the mother. It's rather obvious. You are talking about a threat to a living breathing person who could potentially (depending on the medical circumstances) have another child in the not too distant future versus potentially (again depending on circumstances) leaving a child orphaned.

Both are alive albeit one isnt born but still very much alive will breath when its born in moments. The mother could have another child (would if this would leave her unable to have children change your mind btw?) The child when mature will also have the potential to give birth

The child wouldnt be left orphaned has a father (who isnt around atm so cant eb asked and a good family support structure) again hypotheticly

seamus

Sin City wrote: »

Both are alive albeit one isnt born but still very much alive will breath when its born in moments. The mother could have another child (would if this would leave her unable to have children change your mind btw?) The child when mature will also have the potential to give birth

The child wouldnt be left orphaned has a father (who isnt around atm so cant eb asked and a good family support structure) again hypotheticly

From a purely utilitarian POV, the mother has the best chance of long-term survival (the child is at risk of sudden death during its first year), therefore all other concerns being equal, the mother is the one to save.

Sin City

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sin - fair is fair, we have answered. Now for the 3rd time Who do YOU chose - your wife or the unborn child?

Give me a chance I have to answer everyones else question

Again , for me its conflicting answer. my wife or my child

or a nameless mother and her child.

Honestly I dont know (I woud like to think the child in the namless one though)

doctoremma

Can anyone clarify what a medic's duty of care to an unborn child is in Ireland? Here, the duty of care will be to the mother primarily, until such a point at which she is unable to be saved.

So, in an emergency situation (e.g. baby in distress, C-section required), doctor's will not sacrifice a mother to save the child.

Sin City

seamus wrote: »

From a purely utilitarian POV, the mother has the best chance of long-term survival (the child is at risk of sudden death during its first year), therefore all other concerns being equal, the mother is the one to save.

and if its the cancer sceanrio?

Could live or the cancer could come back?

doctoremma

Sin City wrote: »

Honestly I dont know (I woud like to think the child in the namless one though)

Then you'll have to prospectively forgive my husband for knocking at your door with shotgun...;)

Sin City

Lads this is just a debate, we dont need others attacking or being attacked for their beliefs.