Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

antiskeptic

swampgas wrote: »

There's a very big difference between travelling within your own country to avail of a service and being forced to leave the state to access a service that is illegal to access at home.

The point has to do with whether the law forces a woman to carry to term. So long as there are options then it doesn't

What exactly is your point here???

My original one. The above one.

That's fine, but you're not exactly making a strong case for why anyone should agree with you.

I wasn't attempting to make a case. I was making a statement of fact.

Hiding behind semantics and word play doesn't change the fact that effectively a woman will be forced .. leave her home country to find humane treatment abroad.

The result of which she won't be forced by the law to carry to term. The original claim being rebutted by me.

In reality, the current Irish law does in fact force some women to continue with pregnancies that they would much rather they didn't. Nit-picking about semantics doesn't change that one bit.

Perhaps not that much rather given the relative ease involved in procuring an abortion.

To my mind force involves being driven in a direction without any possibility of doing otherwise.

swampgas

antiskeptic wrote: »

The point has to do with whether the law forces a woman to carry to term. So long as there are options then it doesn't.

Perhaps we can agree on this then: the current law, and the proposed law, will force many Irish women to choose between continuing with a pregnancy, travelling outside the state, or breaking the law.

If a woman cannot travel, for any reason, she is forced to continue with the pregnancy, or to break the law by attempting to self-medicate.

Would you agree with that as a statement of fact?

Brown Bomber

swampgas wrote: »

Even if it can be shown that a foetus experiences some (short-lived) pain, a pregnant woman will expect to experience what is arguably much greater pain and for much longer, if she has to give birth.

Arguing for minimising pain is arguing in favour of abortion, in my opinion.

Fair enough but I don't how you would go about arguing this. Take this tiny little baby for example. How do you go about gauging the pain felt this tiny little child being forcibly grabbed by a forceps, manipulated into position, having their head sliced open and then their brain vacuumed out?

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That's correct.

So would you like to answer Unforgettable _ Fire's question then?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't think it matters so much when abortions are carried out in the UK for example when the foetus can feel pain. Are you an advocate of abortions that cause pain to the foetus before it is killed off?

This has nothing to do with Unforgettable _ Fire's question (How can something without any form of nervous system be considered alive?). If something has no nervous system, then it can't feel pain.

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Fair enough but I don't how you would go about arguing this. Take this tiny little baby for example. How do you go about gauging the pain felt this tiny little child being forcibly grabbed by a forceps, manipulated into position, having their head sliced open and then their brain vacuumed out?

That's a baby - it certainly looks viable!

I'm talking about terminating a barely developed foetus which might be able to feel pain, but is still a long way from being a baby.

Mark Hamill

swampgas wrote: »

I meant if foetal pain is an issue in the sense that one might argue that abortions should be denied after the point where a foetus can feel pain.

The point I failed to make was this - if abortion is considered wrong because a foetus is capable of feeling pain, then is an abortion okay if the foetus is safely anesthetised and feels nothing at all?

And what if the foetus is malformed and has no brain or central nervous system and cannot feel pain? Or what if the foetus is malformed and will only have a life of pain? Would abortion be ok in those instances?

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That would be my position at least.


Right, it's a good point you make and something that I had considered. I looked into this some time ago when I was trying give myself some kind of informed opinion on abortion as I was anti-abortion and pro-choice at the same time and my understanding was that it is not possible to to provide the required amount to simultaneously ensure that the mother is not in danger and the foetus would feel no pain.

Sufficient aesthetic to numb a 200g foetus (weight at 18 weeks) is dangerous to a 50+ kilo mother?

swampgas

Mark Hamill wrote: »

And what if the foetus is malformed and has no brain or central nervous system and cannot feel pain? Or what if the foetus is malformed and will only have a life of pain? Would abortion be ok in those instances?

For me, absolutely.

Brown Bomber

swampgas wrote: »

That's a baby - it certainly looks viable!

I'm talking about terminating a barely developed foetus which might be able to feel pain, but is still a long way from being a baby.

Okay, but I was talking about the 20-24 weeks stage when the foetus can feel pain. The stage when it is still possible to have abortions in the UK.

That baby was a 24 week premature born baby. Aborting him/her is barbarity IMO.

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So would you like to answer Unforgettable _ Fire's question then?

I have to the best of my ability. Is it so controversial to state that human life begins at implantation/conception?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This has nothing to do with Unforgettable _ Fire's question (How can something without any form of nervous system be considered alive?). If something has no nervous system, then it can't feel pain.

Yes. I know that, thanks.

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Sufficient aesthetic to numb a 200g foetus (weight at 18 weeks) is dangerous to a 50+ kilo mother?

According to the medical expert I've read this is correct. I can try to find a link if you want?

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That baby was a 24 week premature born baby. Aborting him/her is barbarity IMO.

That's the real grey area. Maybe I'm a bit more detached.

Personally I would prefer to defer to the pregnant woman and let her decide, regardless of the circumstances. I don't feel that I can insist on a woman continuing with a pregnancy just because of whatever emotion I might feel looking at a picture of a small baby, or because of some arbitrary time limit. Let babies be wanted babies.

Brown Bomber

swampgas wrote: »

That's the real grey area. Maybe I'm a bit more detached.

Personally I would prefer to defer to the pregnant woman and let her decide, regardless of the circumstances. I don't feel that I can insist on a woman continuing with a pregnancy just because of whatever emotion I might feel looking at a picture of a small baby, or because of some arbitrary time limit. Let babies be wanted babies.

And I respect your opinion. I strongly disagree on one point though, the time restrictions aren't at all arbitrary. They can make the difference between the foetus feeling incredible pain prior to it's killing or none at all.

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And I respect your opinion. I strongly disagree on one point though, the time restrictions aren't at all arbitrary. They can make the difference between the foetus feeling incredible pain prior to it's killing or none at all.

Surely all time restrictions are in some way arbitrary? I agree though that pain should be minimised - that applies to adults, children and foetuses alike.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

There was no Christian morality underlining the point that the law doesn't force a woman to carry to term. That point stands all by itself. Are you able to appreciate the separation?

Except the law does force women to carry to term, by denying them the right to an abortion. Of course, women can get around that forcing by going abroad, but we aren't arguing about how efficiently the law applies force so that's irrelevant.

The christian morality is in the notion that not helping someone who is suffering, despite it easily being within your power to do so (to the point of it almost being of no consequence to your own livelihood to help them), somehow absolves you of any moral responsibility for their suffering.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was being patronising since you've been around long enough to know better.

Its funny that you think explicitly explaining how you were "arguing the poster" is somehow evidence you weren't.

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I have to the best of my ability. Is it so controversial to state that human life begins at implantation/conception

But you haven't answered his question at all. Unforgettable _ Fire asked "How can something without any form of nervous system be considered alive?". You need to quote the doctor explaining why he thinks life begins at conception, not just that he thinks it. We know that he thinks it, we want the science justifying why. Is that so controversial?

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

According to the medical expert I've read this is correct. I can try to find a link if you want?

Yes please.
As far as I know the efficacy of anaesthetics are tied very strongly to body mass, the amount needed to put a 40 kilogram person to sleep is not going to put a 140 kilogram person to sleep (at least, not for nearly as long).
It is possible that a pregnant woman is "compromised" in some way (anaesthetically speaking) so maybe I'm wrong, a link would be appreciated.

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But you haven't answered his question at all. Unforgettable _ Fire asked "How can something without any form of nervous system be considered alive?". You need to quote the doctor explaining why he thinks life begins at conception, not just that he thinks it. We know that he thinks it, we want the science justifying why. Is that so controversial?

You are taking the piss now. I am not my brothers keeper nor am I the good doctors. I clearly stated it was his opinion, not necessarily my own. I provided a quotation to show that it was his opinion. I clearly stated that I am not in a position to speak for him,

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes please.
As far as I know the efficacy of anaesthetics are tied very strongly to body mass, the amount needed to put a 40 kilogram person to sleep is not going to put a 140 kilogram person to sleep (at least, not for nearly as long).
It is possible that a pregnant woman is "compromised" in some way (anaesthetically speaking) so maybe I'm wrong, a link would be appreciated.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/AnandPainReport.pdf

Under summary of opinion.

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are taking the piss now. I am not my brothers keeper nor am I the good doctors. I clearly stated it was his opinion, not necessarily my own. I provided a quotation to show that it was his opinion. I clearly stated that I am not in a position to speak for him,

Eh didn't you say you read a book he wrote and that's what convinced you that abortion is wrong? Are you saying you based your opinion on his reasoning without understanding any of it?
Don't get uppity because you were asked to justify a position you brought into the discussion.

Lingua Franca

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Fair enough but I don't how you would go about arguing this. Take this tiny little baby for example. How do you go about gauging the pain felt this tiny little child being forcibly grabbed by a forceps, manipulated into position, having their head sliced open and then their brain vacuumed out?

What in the name of Bod is this?

This baby has not been forcibly grabbed by forceps, manouvered, had it's head sliced open or it's brain vacuumed out. This baby is clearly alive.

You posted a graphic and yet false description and a pic of preemie. How pathetic. This is such a very blatant attempt at an appeal to emotion post that you have actually overdone it to the point of ridiculousness.

Anyway, to put all of this nonsense to rest: in later term abortions the foetal heart is stopped with an injection, usually of Digoxin, the day before labour is induced and these graphic descriptions of conscious foetuses being sliced apart are utter bull, psychopaths like Kermit Gosnell thankfully being an aberration.

Also bear in mind that later term abortions are also rare and tend to be performed in the case of fatal foetal abnormality. I hope no one who has had a termination for medical reasons is reading these erroneous graphic descriptions coupled with pics of a premature baby which was, disgustingly, intended to inspire guilt.

Shame on you.

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/AnandPainReport.pdf

Under summary of opinion.

I was hoping for a more independent source than an anti-abortion website but anyhow...

I'm not sure but I think that the description under "Summary of Opinion" is flawed. It says:

Anaesthetic agents that are routinely administered to the mother during [Abortion] would be insufficient to ensure that the foetus does not feel pain and higher doses of anaesthetic drugs, enough to produce foetal anaesthesia, would seriously compromise the health of the mother

I don't think they don't give anaesthesia to the foetus via the mother, they give it directly.

Brown Bomber

Lingua Franca wrote: »

What in the name of Bod is this?

This baby has not been forcibly grabbed by forceps, manouvered, had it's head sliced open or it's brain vacuumed out. This baby is clearly alive.

You posted a graphic and yet false description and a pic of preemie. How pathetic. This is such a very blatant attempt at an appeal to emotion post that you have actually overdone it to the point of ridiculousness.

Anyway, to put all of this nonsense to rest: in later term abortions the foetal heart is stopped with an injection, usually of Digoxin, the day before labour is induced and these graphic descriptions of conscious foetuses being sliced apart are utter bull, psychopaths like Kermit Gosnell thankfully being an aberration.

Also bear in mind that later term abortions are also rare and tend to be performed in the case of fatal foetal abnormality. I hope no one who has had a termination for medical reasons is reading these erroneous graphic descriptions coupled with pics of a premature baby which was, disgustingly, intended to inspire guilt.

Shame on you.

Spectacular case of misunderstanding. Take a bow.

I've already said that that particular baby was a prematurely delivered baby at 24 weeks. It was a random google image. 24 weeks being a period when abortion is available in the UK.

The point being that that baby under different circumstances could have been dragged out by forceps from the uterus through the cervix and then had his little head cut open and his brain sucked from it's head with a powerful vacuum and then had it's remains discarded like gone off meat.

Lingua Franca

...and you're still at it. Another appeal-to-emotion post and still misrepresenting the process of later term abortions.

Still incredibly disrespectful and hurtful to those who have gone through termination for medical reasons.

Do you really know no shame?

Brown Bomber

Lingua Franca wrote: »

...and you're still at it. Another appeal-to-emotion post and still misrepresenting the process of later term abortions.

Still incredibly disrespectful and hurtful to those who have gone through termination for medical reasons.

Do you really know no shame?

Do you deny that this happens?

Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus's leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the cervix, which some refer to as 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, leaving only the head still inside the uterus. An incision is made at the base of the skull, a blunt dissector (such as a Kelly clamp) is inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening,[4] and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the cervix.

Do you deny that this happens? I feel no shame for being sickened by this depravity.

Brown Bomber

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I was hoping for a more independent source than an anti-abortion website but anyhow...

I'm not sure but I think that the description under "Summary of Opinion" is flawed. It says:

I don't think they don't give anaesthesia to the foetus via the mother, they give it directly.

Perhaps. If you ever find out let me know but for know I think I'll take the word of the credentialed medical expert.

gctest50

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Do you deny that this happens?

How would you go about doing it then ?

What method ?

...................

Found the non-looper version of above pic

Brown Bomber

gctest50 wrote: »

How would you go about doing it then ?

What method ?

I wouldn't. I would hand on heart rather take my own life than do that to an unborn child.

gctest50

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I wouldn't. I would hand on heart rather ..........

Suppose you were doing much needed relief work somewhere abroad.
A terrorist arrives and insists you perform it on the person with him.
You don't have a choice - the crazed terrorist will kill her
( so unborn child dies anyway)

Can you think of a better method ?

Mark Hamill

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Do you deny that this happens?

Do you deny that this happens? I feel no shame for being sickened by this depravity.

It is incredibly dishonest to quote a source but not show where you are getting your information from. Your source is the wiki page on Intact dilation and extraction, which starts with a boxed warning which states:

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject

and then goes onto say:

the procedure has had a low rate of use, representing 0.17% (2,232 of 1,313,000) of all abortions in the United States in the year 2000

so like Lingua Franca said, it is not in any way representative of late term abortions. In fact, according to the end of the wiki page, it does not happen in the UK at all:

Questioned about United Kingdom government policy on the issue in Parliament, Baroness Andrews stated that

"We are not aware of the procedure referred to as 'partial-birth abortion' being used in Great Britain. It is the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists' (RCOG) belief that this method of abortion is never used as a primary or pro-active technique and is only ever likely to be performed in unforeseen circumstances in order to reduce maternal mortality or severe morbidity."