Abortion

philologos · 11-10-2012 7:02pm

robp wrote: »

If this was the case there probably would be some data on this. Maybe this could be true in very under-developed parts of Africa but not here. Maternal mortality is very low in the two big pro-life nations of Europe (Ireland and Poland). In many years its lower than countries with far superior health systems e.g. France, UK and Spain.

I am not trying to say banning abortion will drive the risk down but clearly an abortion ban is entirely compatible with first rate maternal care.

EclipsiumRasa,
Personal attacks are a sign of a losing argument :pac:

Studies which have looked at mortality in birth have shown that mortality rates are higher after abortions. This is true of studies undertaken in Denmark, Finland, Scotland and the United States.

There are links and citations to the studies here.

I don't believe abortion-by-choice is much good for mother, and it is lethal for child.

poeticseraphim · 11-10-2012 9:02pm

Min wrote: »

We all lived in the womb once upon a time, we can speak out for the unborn if we want, given we were once the unborn, and we were allowed to have a voice to speak out.

The people who say they are pro-choice, always seem to want to allow someone's elses life to be terminated in the womb...funny that.
But at least they were allowed to live to have that opinion.

No you can't . And neither can I.

No one can. That is the point.

They have no voice and claiming one side of the debate represents them is abusive and opressive towards them just in a different way.

Growing up knowing you are the product of incest or rape affects people in ways that we never speak about.

I would not want my mother to have to go through a pregnancy with me if she did not want to....it would not be enough...i want her love and blessing or nothing.

You did not speak for me as an unborn child. So qualify that statement you speak for some embryos.

I use th term embryo because 'Unborn' is a ridiculous definition from a pro-life point of view as in humans, the 'unborn' is specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth.

Before three months it is incorrect to refer to human developing offspring as the 'fetus' or an 'unborn' as it is in the embryonic stage of develpment. For the first three months it is not actually an 'unborn child'.The unborn is a post-embyonic stage offspring of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.

The use of strange eugenics arguments or comparing disabled people to embryonic stage offspring is common. But entirely illogical. A human person without a brain lying in a bed shares the characteristics of a vertebrate. A human embryo does not share much more in common with an adult human at all. They share certain similarities with other embryonic species. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny when applid to single characteristics. That means single characteristics of embryos go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors.

The 'person' you claim to speak for.....has of pharyngeal arches (also called pharyngeal pouches or gill slits)... embryos have gill slits...did you know that? In fish they develop into gills in humans and chicken they become parts of the head. It is not a person . It is not even a fetus yet. It has more in common with the embryos of other species than it does with human person in terms of physical biology.

It is not even living being . A single cell organism has vital functions that keep it alive an embryo has no vital functions. Biologically it is not alive.what 'works is actually outside of itself'.. Embryos are not alive; they do not fulfill the scientific definition of being alive, which is: a living organism must be able to move, breathe, have at least one sense, grow, reproduce, excrete waste, and eat.

It is only a living being if you consider it to be a part of the woman.

http://www.humaniteinenglish.com/spip.php?article637

Francis Kaplan argues the embryo is not even a POTENTIAL human being.

You are arguing over the right of a non living embryo over the right of choice of an adult woman.

So get your definitions correct before you incorrectly and scandalously accuse me of advocating 'the termination of someone else's life in the womb'. I advocate no such thing.

I give the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy in the embryonic stage....you know when it has no head but the same number of of pharyngeal arches gill slits as a chicken embryo and no vital functions and actually not alive.

poeticseraphim · 11-10-2012 9:16pm

philologos wrote: »

Studies which have looked at mortality in birth have shown that mortality rates are higher after abortions. This is true of studies undertaken in Denmark, Finland, Scotland and the United States.

There are links and citations to the studies here.

I don't believe abortion-by-choice is much good for mother, and it is lethal for child.

Then don't have one.

Pregnancy by force is a disgusting abuse of human rights on the mother and is inexcusable. The trauma is unacceptable.

How do we know this? Women tell us. Not all do ...but some.

An embryo is not a child nor is it a fetus yet. It is not even alive.

and it is lethal for child.

:rolleyes: yes we know. We may disagree with your definitions on the basis that they are technically incorrect and slightly infantile. But I get the jist of your sentiment. The embryo is no more......yeah..ok....sure

Abortion has never proved lethal to any child as far as I know.....embryos and fetuses it has terminated (which is not the same as being lethal).

Don't equat child with embryo...children have and should have infinitely more rights and protections than embryos...they are not even remotely similar biologically.
'

philologos · 11-10-2012 10:06pm

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Then don't have one.

Pregnancy by force is a disgusting abuse of human rights on the mother and is inexcusable. The trauma is unacceptable.

How do we know this? Women tell us. Not all do ...but some.

An embryo is not a child nor is it a fetus yet. It is not even alive.

People have criticised me on boards.ie for claiming that pro-choicers deny biological fact about the embryo and the foetus.

Here's one such example. The embryo is biologically human - formed of sperm and ova, and it growing and developing (I.E - it's not biologically dead), it is also the same life that is born, is a child, is a teenager, is an adult, and eventually the same life that dies.

It is alive, and it is a human life biologically.

By the by, I know a lot of women who are pro-life. To claim "Women tell us" is just ridiculous.

Oh, and it isn't as simple as to say "Don't have one". It's a fundamental denial of human rights to the unborn, therefore it is a good deal more serious than to say "Don't have one".

poeticseraphim wrote: »

:rolleyes: yes we know. We may disagree with your definitions on the basis that they are technically incorrect and slightly infantile. But I get the jist of your sentiment. The embryo is no more......yeah..ok....sure

Abortion has never proved lethal to any child as far as I know.....embryos and fetuses it has terminated (which is not the same as being lethal).

Don't equat child with embryo...children have and should have infinitely more rights and protections than embryos...they are not even remotely similar biologically.
'

How much more incorrect can you get than to claim that an embryo and a foetus aren't biologically alive?

The only difference between my life when I was at embryonic stage, and now is that I'm older, and I've developed a good deal more since. It's still the same life. That was still me. If that life is destroyed, then yes, it is lethal.

poeticseraphim · 11-10-2012 11:13pm

philologos wrote: »

People have criticised me on boards.ie for claiming that pro-choicers deny biological fact about the embryo and the foetus.

Here's one such example. The embryo is biologically human - formed of sperm and ova, and it growing and developing (I.E - it's not biologically dead), it is also the same life that is born, is a child, is a teenager, is an adult, and eventually the same life that dies.

It is alive, and it is a human life biologically.

By the by, I know a lot of women who are pro-life. To claim "Women tell us" is just ridiculous.

Oh, and it isn't as simple as to say "Don't have one". It's a fundamental denial of human rights to the unborn, therefore it is a good deal more serious than to say "Don't have one".

How much more incorrect can you get than to claim that an embryo and a foetus aren't biologically alive?

The only difference between my life when I was at embryonic stage, and now is that I'm older, and I've developed a good deal more since. It's still the same life. That was still me. If that life is destroyed, then yes, it is lethal.

No you are completely incorrect. That is why we have embryonic stem cell research in Ireland.

An Embryo is biologically and physiologoically(which is probably more important anyway) a human embryo...not a human person.

A human embryo is not physiologically a human person. A human embryo is a discrete entity that has arisen from either:the first mitotic division when fertilization of a human oocyte by a human sperm is complete or any other process that initiates organized development of a biological entity with a human nuclear genome or altered human nuclear genome that has the potential to develop up to, or beyond, the stage at which the primitive streak appears,and has not yet reached 9 weeks of development since the first mitotic division.

Neither of those is a human being. The majority of the Biological markers are not present. In fact the cells you think are 'human ' at this stage could still divide and become two individuals.

The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.

Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.

How much more incorrect can you get than to claim that an embryo and a foetus aren't biologically alive?

It is scientifically correct they don't meet the criteria. Which you do not seem to even be aware of. They have no heart beat no actual vital functions within itself until these develop.
Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit metabolism and homeostasis. An embryo in a dish does not. It is the mother that preforms these functions.

WHen i say 'Women tell us' I mean when an individual woman says...this is to much for me..that means IT IS. She has a first person relationship with herself body. No other woman knows. And if it is not their body they should butt out.

You are now physiologically nothing like an embryo. That embryo you became was not even male. It was female. You became you. Your indentity as an individual did not exist.

No it is absolutley not alive. If you have a choice to save an embryo or a child or a person you choose the child or a living person. Thats why we have embryonic stem cell research in Ireland. We recognise the embyro is not a human person.

poeticseraphim · 11-10-2012 11:17pm

philologos wrote: »

People have criticised me on boards.ie for claiming that pro-choicers deny biological fact about the embryo and the foetus.

Here's one such example. The embryo is biologically human - formed of sperm and ova, and it growing and developing (I.E - it's not biologically dead), it is also the same life that is born, is a child, is a teenager, is an adult, and eventually the same life that dies.

It is alive, and it is a human life biologically.

By the by, I know a lot of women who are pro-life. To claim "Women tell us" is just ridiculous.

Oh, and it isn't as simple as to say "Don't have one". It's a fundamental denial of human rights to the unborn, therefore it is a good deal more serious than to say "Don't have one".

How much more incorrect can you get than to claim that an embryo and a foetus aren't biologically alive?

The only difference between my life when I was at embryonic stage, and now is that I'm older, and I've developed a good deal more since. It's still the same life. That was still me. If that life is destroyed, then yes, it is lethal.

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091217/full/news.2009.1148.html

We already do that in Ireland...have been for years....:rolleyes:

That is not what the issue is about. It is not about the definition of an embryo as the state already recognises that an embryo in and of itself is not a human.

'The Supreme Court ruled that embryos outside the womb are not unborn children within the meaning of the Constitution of Ireland. This ruling is in line with the conclusions of a 2005 government-commissioned report that argued that an embryo is not protected under the constitution until it has been implanted into a womb. '

K-9 · 11-10-2012 11:32pm

DUP Health Minister was on UTV, no surprise at their position.

Alliance for on BBC and SDLP against, no surprise again.

SF put forward no representative, the biggest pro choice party seems to have gone to ground.

Min · 12-10-2012 12:22am

poeticseraphim wrote: »

No you can't . And neither can I.

No one can. That is the point.

They have no voice and claiming one side of the debate represents them is abusive and opressive towards them just in a different way.

Growing up knowing you are the product of incest or rape affects people in ways that we never speak about.

I would not want my mother to have to go through a pregnancy with me if she did not want to....it would not be enough...i want her love and blessing or nothing.

You did not speak for me as an unborn child. So qualify that statement you speak for some embryos.

I use th term embryo because 'Unborn' is a ridiculous definition from a pro-life point of view as in humans, the 'unborn' is specifically the unborn offspring in the postembryonic period, in humans from nine weeks after fertilization until birth.

Before three months it is incorrect to refer to human developing offspring as the 'fetus' or an 'unborn' as it is in the embryonic stage of develpment. For the first three months it is not actually an 'unborn child'.The unborn is a post-embyonic stage offspring of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.

The use of strange eugenics arguments or comparing disabled people to embryonic stage offspring is common. But entirely illogical. A human person without a brain lying in a bed shares the characteristics of a vertebrate. A human embryo does not share much more in common with an adult human at all. They share certain similarities with other embryonic species. Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny when applid to single characteristics. That means single characteristics of embryos go through stages resembling or representing successive stages in the evolution of their remote ancestors.

The 'person' you claim to speak for.....has of pharyngeal arches (also called pharyngeal pouches or gill slits)... embryos have gill slits...did you know that? In fish they develop into gills in humans and chicken they become parts of the head. It is not a person . It is not even a fetus yet. It has more in common with the embryos of other species than it does with human person in terms of physical biology.

It is not even living being . A single cell organism has vital functions that keep it alive an embryo has no vital functions. Biologically it is not alive.what 'works is actually outside of itself'.. Embryos are not alive; they do not fulfill the scientific definition of being alive, which is: a living organism must be able to move, breathe, have at least one sense, grow, reproduce, excrete waste, and eat.

It is only a living being if you consider it to be a part of the woman.

http://www.humaniteinenglish.com/spip.php?article637

Francis Kaplan argues the embryo is not even a POTENTIAL human being.

You are arguing over the right of a non living embryo over the right of choice of an adult woman.

So get your definitions correct before you incorrectly and scandalously accuse me of advocating 'the termination of someone else's life in the womb'. I advocate no such thing.

I give the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy in the embryonic stage....you know when it has no head but the same number of of pharyngeal arches gill slits as a chicken embryo and no vital functions and actually not alive.

We were all unborn once, so at the very least we can say we are talking from experience.
Being pro-choice, you have no problem with the termination of a unique human life if someone wishes to do it.
An embryo is alive, it has all the DNA of a human being just not a person.
If it was not actually alive it would end up as a natural abortion.

Min · 12-10-2012 12:30am

poeticseraphim wrote: »

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091217/full/news.2009.1148.html

We already do that in Ireland...have been for years....:rolleyes:

That is not what the issue is about. It is not about the definition of an embryo as the state already recognises that an embryo in and of itself is not a human.

'The Supreme Court ruled that embryos outside the womb are not unborn children within the meaning of the Constitution of Ireland. This ruling is in line with the conclusions of a 2005 government-commissioned report that argued that an embryo is not protected under the constitution until it has been implanted into a womb. '

Your Supreme court quote nowhere mentions anything about human beings, it mentions unborn children, and one would hope a pregnant human being would have an unborn human being in her womb and not something out of alien.

Mickeroo · 12-10-2012 12:36am

What you're saying is the embryo is organic matter, so technically yes, it's alive. What people really mean in these arguments when they say "alive" is "self aware" or capable of feeling, which it isn't since it doesn't have the hardware necessary at that stage of development. Obviously if you believe in an immortal soul then the point is moot to you anyway.

Anyway, glad to see that clinic opening. At least it will take some of the difficulty out of the equation.

JupiterKid · 12-10-2012 12:47am

It's interesting how these threads are avoided by the vast majority of posters as they draw the fanatics right out of the woodwork.

Good to hear about the Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast opening. I won't be surprised if the foaming at the mouth DUP evangelicals plus the SPUC/youth defence brigade try to picket it or close it down via force. It's time Ireland - both North and South - moved with the rest of the enlightened, civilised world on this issue.

Long overdue, in fact.

K-9 · 12-10-2012 12:51am

JupiterKid wrote: »

It's interesting how these threads are avoided by the vast majority of posters as they draw the fanatics right out of the woodwork.

Good to hear about the Marie Stopes clinic in Belfast opening. I won't be surprised if the foaming at the mouth DUP evangelicals plus the SPUC/youth defence brigade try to picket it or close it down via force. It's time Ireland - both North and South - moved with the rest of the enlightened, civilised world on this issue.

Long overdue, in fact.

THe inaction of Sinn Fein will be far more telling.

poeticseraphim · 12-10-2012 1:42am

Min wrote: »

Your Supreme court quote nowhere mentions anything about human beings, it mentions unborn children, and one would hope a pregnant human being would have an unborn human being in her womb and not something out of alien.

That is gibberish?????

It ruled that an embryo that was not implanted in the womb was not an 'unborn child' . If you read the link it describes what the case was. Embryo destruction in embryonic stem cell research in Ireland. The Supreme court ruled these embyos were not unborn children. And that they were not protected under the constitution. It defined when under the constitution they considered the embryo to become an unborn child. Which was not at the moment of fertilization but at the moment of implantation.

This means that the Irish supreme court does not view the embryo to be an unborn child at the point of conception. And it is not protected.

But this might mean that an embryo that was fertilized in the fallopian tube and resulted in an eptopic pregnancy would also not be an unborn child as it has not been implanted in the womb. Nor is it a potential human being.

The Irish supreme court does not view the unborn child as a human being in the same sense as it would the mother. The definition is not giving the unborn equal staus to that of a born child. It places the mothers life above the unborn child. When her or both lives are in danger she is given precedence.

And the laws regarding murder and punishment for abortion are different.

I am not sure what you are on about up there min . But the term 'unborn child' distinguishes it from a human being in terms of the rights it has.

K-9 · 12-10-2012 1:51am

Sinn Fein are an All Ireland party. Let us see how consistent they are.

SF are pro abortion in the Republic, gone strangely quiet now the abortion question has arisen in the North.

poeticseraphim · 12-10-2012 2:09am

Min wrote: »

We were all unborn once, so at the very least we can say we are talking from experience.
Being pro-choice, you have no problem with the termination of a unique human life if someone wishes to do it.
An embryo is alive, it has all the DNA of a human being just not a person.
If it was not actually alive it would end up as a natural abortion.

You are claiming to talk from experience of the womb?

You cannot talk of something from empirical experience if whilst you were experiencing it....you were not conscious and have no memory of it.

People grow up to have differing opinions this is the problem with claiming you speak for the unborn child. I would not want to be born if it meant it was against my mothers will. It would break my heart . But that is based on my feelings. I don't claim i speak for 'the unborn'. I am making the point that in a society where there are pro-choice people perhaps some others feel as i do then many of the unborn children you claim to speak for actually did not want you to do so in adulthood.

Obviously you are (or i hope not) that the unborn actually has an opinion or desire on the matter.

Being pro -choice i do not for a moment accept that the embryo or fetus is an individual human life at all stages of development.

It is not alive in the sense it is not capable of separate individual existence away from this other individual's body.

The crime of child destruction the crime of killing an unborn but viable foetus; that is, a child "capable of being born alive", before it has "a separate existence".makes this distinction.

It cannot live on it's own therefore it is not individual and it actually has no life in British law...it has no life or chance of living outside of the female body.

I would argue that still leaves the window open too late for abortion. Early term abortion in the embryonic stages is something I am comfortable with. Perhaps nothing beyond 3 months(the embryonic stage this is the pre-fetus stage medically it is not classed as a fetus until the tenth week i think) maybe 4 unless the woman's life is at risk.

I do not consider an implanted embryo to be a human person or a human life.

Even in situations of coma or brain death the life support is not put upon one sole individual and it is not put upon their own body against their will. It is a spurious comparison but often used, even in situations of coma or brain death the life support is not put upon one sole individual and it is not put upon their own body against their will. And the individual is made individual through not being connected physically for their survivial to the body and and organs of another person. That connection actually damages the conecpt of a fetus being separate and individual it is actually not separate and individual from it's mother and cannot survive such a separation as it has no vital functions of it's own body as an individual.

It really is great news about the clinic in Belfast it will help so many women.

poeticseraphim · 12-10-2012 2:19am

K-9 wrote: »

Sinn Fein are an All Ireland party. Let us see how consistent they are.

SF are pro abortion in the Republic, gone strangely quiet now the abortion question has arisen in the North.

They are not the only party that is disingenuine on this issue. FF and FG have made a balls of legislation for years. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice they have let you down.

When you think of the cases it affected.

I had a friend in France who when i explained the X case was shocked 'Brutality' was the word he used.

The idea that the pro-life arguement should be extended to cases of rape and incst and even to minors is just shocking to most other countries.

But what is mos shocking is the way we go about it all ...years this has gone on.
A lot of women are actually very angry at the cowardice and opertunism. There was a group of women who went to the Dáil recenly who had abortions due to medical complications. There were largely ignored.

Chucken · 12-10-2012 3:00am

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Then don't have one.

Pregnancy by force is a disgusting abuse of human rights on the mother and is inexcusable. The trauma is unacceptable.

How do we know this? Women tell us. Not all do ...but some.

An embryo is not a child nor is it a fetus yet. It is not even alive.

:rolleyes: yes we know. We may disagree with your definitions on the basis that they are technically incorrect and slightly infantile. But I get the jist of your sentiment. The embryo is no more......yeah..ok....sure

Abortion has never proved lethal to any child as far as I know.....embryos and fetuses it has terminated (which is not the same as being lethal).

Don't equat child with embryo...children have and should have infinitely more rights and protections than embryos...they are not even remotely similar biologically.
'

Here! Watch this and tell me its not a human child thats alive.

You think its ok to literally pull this "embryo" apart??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhGzu3xL5u4

If you like I'll throw up an actual abortion video too.

poeticseraphim · 12-10-2012 3:39am

Chucken wrote: »

Here! Watch this and tell me its not a human child thats alive.

You think its ok to literally pull this "embryo" apart??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhGzu3xL5u4

If you like I'll throw up an actual abortion video too.

Sigh...

This is a fetus at 12 weeks not an embryo at nine.....abortion at this stage is highly unusual and accounts for a tiny % of abortions 4.1 percent abortions were mid-term abortions and 1.4 percent abortion were late-term abortions. This would b a late term abortion. And it is not legal in very country that legalis abortion.

You don't actually seem to understand the difference between an embryo and a fetus.

An embryo becomes a fetus at about 9 weeks.

To be honest i would prefer it was only nine weeks and under.

What you are refering to would be a late term abortion. This type of abortion accounts for about a tiny % of all abortions...and it IS NOT an early term abortion. Mid term abortions account for 4% of all abortions lae term about 1.5%.

Yes i have seen a late term abortion. I understand that "intact dilation and extraction" or "intact dilation and evacuation" and is commonly known as partial-birth abortion. D & X is a mid-term and late-term abortion procedure which the American Medical Association's (AMA) website ama-assn.org describes as "deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days; instrumental or manual conversion of the fetus to a footling breech; breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus." Another description of D & X is the abortion doctor uses forceps to grasp the fetus' leg; the leg is pulled out into the birth canal; the doctor delivers the fetus' entire body, except for the head; the doctor inserts scissors into the fetus' skull; the scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole; the scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted; the fetus' brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse; the dead intact fetus is removed.

But you are right lets be very honest about what we ar talking about.

D & X stands for "intact dilation and extraction" or "intact dilation and evacuation" and is commonly known as partial-birth abortion. D & X is a mid-term and late-term abortion procedure which the American Medical Association's (AMA) website ama-assn.org describes as "deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a sequence of days; instrumental or manual conversion of the fetus to a footling breech; breech extraction of the body excepting the head; and partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus." Another description of D & X is the abortion doctor uses forceps to grasp the fetus' leg; the leg is pulled out into the birth canal; the doctor delivers the fetus' entire body, except for the head; the doctor inserts scissors into the fetus' skull; the scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole; the scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted; the fetus' brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse; the dead intact fetus is removed.

D & X is not medically necessary. The AMA goes on to say "according to the scientific literature, there does not appear to be any identified situation in which intact D & X is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion." The AMA also says, "Although third-trimester abortions can be performed to preserve the life or health of the mother, they are in fact, generally not necessary for those purposes. Except in extraordinary circumstances, maternal health factors which demand termination of the pregnancy can be accommodated without sacrifice of the fetus, and the near certainty of the independent viability of the fetus argues for ending the pregnancy by appropriate delivery."

D & X is not the only type of mid-term and late-term abortion. Another mid-term and late-term abortion technique is D & E which stands for dilation and evacuation. WebMD says the first step in a D & E abortion is to dilate the cervix. Enlarging the opening of the cervix enables surgical instruments such as a curette or forceps to be inserted into the uterus. The second step in a D & E abortion is to remove the fetus. The pregnant woman is given a local anesthetic or general anesthesia. Forceps are inserted into the uterus through the vagina and used to separate the fetus into pieces which are removed one at a time. The last step is to use vacuum aspiration to ensure no fetal tissue remains in the uterus. Another way to describe D & E abortion is to say that he abortion doctor gives the pregnant woman anesthesia and uses instruments to cut up the fetus in his mother's womb and remove the fetal body parts through his mother's vagina. Other methods of mid-term and late-term abortion are instillation methods such as salt poisoning or other poisoning of the fetus and hysterotomy where incisions are made in the pregnant woman's abdomen and the uterus and the fetus, placenta, and amniotic sac are removed.

But an abortion at this stage is actually higly unusual and would not be done in many countries where abortion is legal.

But if it came to a choice...yeah i would be ok with supporting a woman's choice. I would advocate early term pro-choice really though....but it is so rare anyway.

If you really want to post an abortion go ahead. I have no problem with it. I am pro-choice.

Nice to see you enjoying yourself.

You don't really seem to know what you are talking about or you are being deliberately misleading.

poeticseraphim · 12-10-2012 4:10am

By the way when you do post your abortion film will you please post an interview of the said mother and her feelings on the subject???

Why did she have an abortion .....?? Was her life in danger? Was she raped? Was she unable to care for the child ? What did it feel like to be overwhelmed like that? What did the unwanted pregnancy do to her psyche?

I could of course post a video of an actual embryo and the stage a pregnancy is at up to three months which is MUCH earlier than your video. But i prefer information not stupid infantile theatrics which simply don't shock anyone.

Abortion does not shock pro-choicers.

There are many early term abortion vids and pictures and accounts on youtube from actual women have given brave accounts of them.

One woman had quite the quote....'Prolifers are at best idiots at worst downright evil....I have processed my problems with prolifers ....they are idiots' ....succinct...

Her views on late term abortion were thus...'elements of personhood give a fetus interests ..late term abortions should be decided upon in a case by case basis' 'but the interests of he women must be put first'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9raDgKu_0jw&feature=related

Listen to an intelligent person speak .

The comments below are basically the bog standard pro-lifer foulness.

Esoteric_ · 12-10-2012 6:49am

Chucken wrote: »

If you like I'll throw up an actual abortion video too.

I'd rather watch an abortion video than a woman giving birth, tbh.

Like another poster said, watching an abortion video is all well and good, but what about interviews with women who talk about why they had abortions, how it affected them, the consequences?

If you're going to be pro-life, that's great. But you might want to take into consideration the fact that you're ignoring the mother's life.

Lingua Franca · 12-10-2012 6:53am

K-9 wrote: »

Sinn Fein are an All Ireland party. Let us see how consistent they are.

SF are pro abortion in the Republic, gone strangely quiet now the abortion question has arisen in the North.

Last night Sinn Féin issued a statement saying it does not believe the 1967 British Abortion Act should be extended to the North.

"Sinn Féin is not in favour of abortion. Sinn Féin believes that where a woman’s life or mental health is at risk or in grave danger that the final decision rests with the woman.

"The Marie Stopes clinic is a private institution. It has to operate under the guidelines and the legal framework set out by the department of health in the North," it read.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/pro-life-campaigners-threaten-to-shut-down-belfast-clinic-210621.html

They are shamelessly inconsistent on this issue.

philologos · 12-10-2012 7:39am

poeticseraphim wrote: »

philologos wrote: »

People have criticised me on boards.ie for claiming that pro-choicers deny biological fact about the embryo and the foetus.

Here's one such example. The embryo is biologically human - formed of sperm and ova, and it growing and developing (I.E - it's not biologically dead), it is also the same life that is born, is a child, is a teenager, is an adult, and eventually the same life that dies.

It is alive, and it is a human life biologically.

By the by, I know a lot of women who are pro-life. To claim "Women tell us" is just ridiculous.

Oh, and it isn't as simple as to say "Don't have one". It's a fundamental denial of human rights to the unborn, therefore it is a good deal more serious than to say "Don't have one".

How much more incorrect can you get than to claim that an embryo and a foetus aren't biologically alive?

The only difference between my life when I was at embryonic stage, and now is that I'm older, and I've developed a good deal more since. It's still the same life. That was still me. If that life is destroyed, then yes, it is lethal.

No you are completely incorrect. That is why we have embryonic stem cell research in Ireland.

An Embryo is biologically and physiologoically(which is probably more important anyway) a human embryo...not a human person.

A human embryo is not physiologically a human person. A human embryo is a discrete entity that has arisen from either:the first mitotic division when fertilization of a human oocyte by a human sperm is complete or any other process that initiates organized development of a biological entity with a human nuclear genome or altered human nuclear genome that has the potential to develop up to, or beyond, the stage at which the primitive streak appears,and has not yet reached 9 weeks of development since the first mitotic division.

Neither of those is a human being. The majority of the Biological markers are not present. In fact the cells you think are 'human ' at this stage could still divide and become two individuals.

The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependent on a woman's body to survive. Anti-choicers might argue that born human beings can be entirely dependent on other people too, but the crucial difference is that they are not dependent on one, specific person to the exclusion of all others. Anybody can take care of a newborn infant (or disabled person), but only that pregnant woman can nurture her fetus. She can’t hire someone else to do it.

Another key difference is that a fetus doesn't just depend on a woman's body for survival, it actually resides inside her body. Human beings must, by definition, be separate individuals. They do not gain the status of human being by virtue of living inside the body of another human being—the very thought is inherently ridiculous, even offensive.

How much more incorrect can you get than to claim that an embryo and a foetus aren't biologically alive?

It is scientifically correct they don't meet the criteria. Which you do not seem to even be aware of. They have no heart beat no actual vital functions within itself until these develop.
Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit metabolism and homeostasis. An embryo in a dish does not. It is the mother that preforms these functions.

WHen i say 'Women tell us' I mean when an individual woman says...this is to much for me..that means IT IS. She has a first person relationship with herself body. No other woman knows. And if it is not their body they should butt out.

You are now physiologically nothing like an embryo. That embryo you became was not even male. It was female. You became you. Your indentity as an individual did not exist.

No it is absolutley not alive. If you have a choice to save an embryo or a child or a person you choose the child or a living person. Thats why we have embryonic stem cell research in Ireland. We recognise the embyro is not a human person.

Simple question for you - how is a biological organism (in this case formed of prerequisites - sperm and ova) which grows and develops dead? Do dead organisms do this?

By the by, biological reality can differ from law.

I'm physiologically diferent to an embryo yes because I'm 23 and a bit older than it. But nobody an logically deny the fact that the very same life the embryo constituted no matter how young or physiologically different is the same life I lead now.

So anything an individual woman says? What if you have two women one pro-life and possibly even affected from a previous abortion and a woman who is pro-choice possibly had an abortion with no regrets at least at present.

Who do we listen to?

The bodily integrity argument is weak as abortion involves sucking out the body of an innocent child and in some cases splitting it into pieces. If you want to find out more you can look up abortion methods online. What about the child's integrity?

Nodin · 12-10-2012 8:18am

K-9 wrote: »

Sinn Fein are an All Ireland party. Let us see how consistent they are.

SF are pro abortion in the Republic, gone strangely quiet now the abortion question has arisen in the North.

It would be nice if you aqquainted yourself with what the Sinn Fein position was, before coming out with that kind of thing.

philologos · 12-10-2012 8:19am

LyndaMcL wrote: »

Chucken wrote: »

If you like I'll throw up an actual abortion video too.

I'd rather watch an abortion video than a woman giving birth, tbh.

Like another poster said, watching an abortion video is all well and good, but what about interviews with women who talk about why they had abortions, how it affected them, the consequences?

If you're going to be pro-life, that's great. But you might want to take into consideration the fact that you're ignoring the mother's life.

A pro-life position is the only position that seeks a genuine via-media in the conflict. It is the pro-choice side who ignore the human rights of the child.

By the by - many women would tell you they regretted having an abortion. Regret aside, it is factual that having an abortion significantly increases chances of mortality in the mother. See my previous posts.

Nodin · 12-10-2012 8:20am

Lingua Franca wrote: »

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

They are shamelessly inconsistent on this issue.

They've never been pro-abortion "on-demand". Ever. And I know, because I am, and would have noticed. They advocate the same position down here thats legislated for up north.

nozzferrahhtoo · 12-10-2012 9:45am

philologos wrote: »

A pro-life position is the only position that seeks a genuine via-media in the conflict. It is the pro-choice side who ignore the human rights of the child.

That is the progoganda piece you usually spew onto these fora every day. It is simply not true however.

You really want... nay need... to paint the pro choice side as ignoring or being uncaring about the rights of children. It simply is not so and never has been despite your continued misrepresentation on these fora.

The truth is that both sides are more than interested in childrens rights. They differ only in where they think those rights exist and apply and are relevant. We simply see no reason on the pro choice side to consider the fetus at, say, 20 weeks as being something that deserves or requires "rights" at all.

So can keep saying we are "ignoring" these things, but it is not possible to ignore what is not actually there.

But keep churning your propaganda wheel to make up for your lack of actual cogent arguments in the debate. Lies are powerful and you seem to want to continue to deploy them.

K-9 · 12-10-2012 11:19am

In fairness it was me that was wrong, they are pro abortion if the mothers life is at risk, including risk of suicide. I was always under the impression that they had a more liberal policy so hands up on that one.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Last night Sinn Féin issued a statement saying it does not believe the 1967 British Abortion Act should be extended to the North.

"Sinn Féin is not in favour of abortion. Sinn Féin believes that where a woman’s life or mental health is at risk or in grave danger that the final decision rests with the woman.

"The Marie Stopes clinic is a private institution. It has to operate under the guidelines and the legal framework set out by the department of health in the North," it read.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/pro-life-campaigners-threaten-to-shut-down-belfast-clinic-210621.html

They are shamelessly inconsistent on this issue.

Lingua Franca · 12-10-2012 11:58am

Oh, but they do. http://www.sinnfein.ie/ard-fheis-2012-motions Health and Children, Motion 115.

Motion 115
This Ard Fheis supports the ethical view that a woman should have the legal right to elective abortion whatever the circumstances. We recognise that there are strong views within our party on both sides of the argument but we believe the a woman should ultimately have the right to make the decision where her health, physical or mental, and welfare are concerned.

All things to all people.

K-9 · 12-10-2012 12:27pm

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Oh, but they do. http://www.sinnfein.ie/ard-fheis-2012-motions Health and Children, Motion 115.

All things to all people.

It wasn't passed AFAIK.

Lingua Franca · 12-10-2012 12:30pm

Ah yes, my mistake. I thought the "passed" sign above it applied. It's the lower one that says failed that applies. I retract my assertion.

poeticseraphim · 12-10-2012 3:31pm

philologos wrote: »

A pro-life position is the only position that seeks a genuine via-media in the conflict. It is the pro-choice side who ignore the human rights of the child.

By the by - many women would tell you they regretted having an abortion. Regret aside, it is factual that having an abortion significantly increases chances of mortality in the mother. See my previous posts.

Abortion for Irish women is very common.I personally know many many women (more than yourself i would wager) who have had abortions and not a one regretted it.

It should be the individual's choice.

That is not true actually in real independant acedemic psychological studies these are statistically rare.

There is no 'child' in the early stages. I actually think to give equal status to an embryo or a fetus in trms of rights to a living baby is actually immoral and evil. It the type of attitude that stops stem cell research which could help so many.

The embyro has no rights. A fetus (later stage) less rights. With the characteristics of life and personhood slowly becoming present with each developmental stage then the interests of the unborn should be considered. But always after the best health interests of the mother. Early term abortion should be on demand. Late term i think should be considered on a case by case basis. If the health of the mother is at risk (either her physcial health or mental health) then her inetersts and choice should be put first.

The study regarding mothers mortality has been debunked.

And the same stuyd claimed that miltiple abortions lowered the mortality rate it was one abortion they claimed.

An early term embryo has no rights. Even in law now pre-implantation it is nt protected so technically some abortions could be carried out in the republic.

A woman's choice is paramount. The Belfast clinic is a great first step.

ro95 · 14-10-2012 10:38pm

Abortions should be legal, not because im anti-life but because noone can tell someone what they can and cant do in respect of their own body.

skinny1980 · 19-10-2012 3:13pm

Min wrote: »

We all lived in the womb once upon a time, we can speak out for the unborn if we want, given we were once the unborn, and we were allowed to have a voice to speak out.

The people who say they are pro-choice, always seem to want to allow someone's elses life to be terminated in the womb...funny that.
But at least they were allowed to live to have that opinion.

Do you support stopping women at ports and airports and checking to see if they are pregnant and not on their way abroad for abortions? How about putting women in custody and forcing them to give birth against their will? Would you support locking up women who have abortion for murder or attempted murder? In the US if they make abortion illegal they will probably have women executed. Is that what you want?:mad:

Mickeroo · 19-10-2012 4:00pm

There was a picket outside the clinic in the north yesterday, don't know if it's still going on today. The picketers didn't even seem to know about the 9 week rule there as they were waving pictures of a 22 week old fetus around.

Abortion

Comments