Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

later12

ASVM wrote: »

Being a woman I agree that it is a woman who should get to decide ultimately.

What does being a woman have to do with that conclusion?
That seems to me like a conclusion based on gender self-interest as opposed to anything rational.

If there was a gun against my head, I'd probably reluctantly concur that the choice ultimately ought to be the woman's; however I think it's the greyest area of debate when it comes to discussing abortion, and I don't think it ought to be so summarily decided based on whatever gender one happens to have acquired.

Not least because if everyone were to think along those lines, 50% of the population would be in conflict with you.

charlemont

Opus Dei..

LeeHoffmann

Really in this case, that is irrelevant.

:rolleyes: I was answering a question made by a previous poster. I didn´t say it was relevant to this particular case. It is relevant to the question of abortion in general, which was a side point that came up in discussion. :mad:

nicki116

Not all Catholics/religious people disprove of gays, I for instance have tonnes of gay friends and love gay people their fun and its certainly interesting having a guy to turn to for boyfriend advice .

To lump us all in together is to generalize just like people tend to generalize why all abortions are wrong and to assume that those who disprove of it are religious or don't understand how the woman feels, I had an unplanned pregnancy when I was 18 and miscarried it was the wrong time for me but I didn't blame the child I was shocked and scared but if I killed my baby it would have been a thousand times worse for me because then it would have been my fault. I would have made that decision and it would have been wrong to do so just because I was scared because the fear passed and I started to figure it out what I would do what I would tell people etc.

I believe that we should have better prepared services in the case of an emergency but abortion on demand is to objective children to whether they have enough value to be allowed to live because we don't want one now or because its not convenient for us to have one is selfish and an abuse of our rights.

Why is this the only women's right I hear of us having or being abused, what about equal pay or treatment? Or men's rights, if your married or in a long term relationship, shouldn't your partner have the right to an opinion? We are not uterus's with legs but our decision effects other people not just ourselves so its wrong to discard that.

Lastly why are pro-life sites the only ones with facts supporting them and how has no one else noticed this. Three abortions is considered the limit because your body can't take it. Your more susceptible to cancer, miscarriages, infertility and decreased sexual pleasure if there's cervical/vaginal scarring and that's from one abortion, each one just increases the risks for future pregnancies. Abortion is not a form of contraception, its meant to be a last resort, contraceptives if properly used are 96-99% effective and some aren't 100% simply because of human error in using them or factory defects. If you have no intention of ever having kids get sterilized some can be reversed not all so whatever your decision its your decision to have sex be aware of the risks and if you don't wanna take the risks don't have it, use protection or get sterilized its your decision don't make an innocent child pay for it.

I am a woman, pro-choice and a Catholic, I don't hate myself or anyone else you may have your own issues with males or the church but what they did doesn't change my essential beliefs or just define me I decide what defines me and I don't define myself by belittling the views of men because I have a uterus and they don't or some stuffy old guys turned out to be monsters and stuff that happened to women in the past. If old grievances mean so much to you then fair enough but don't shove it down my throat or anyone elses and I don't know one man who hates women, people tend to hate the individual who harmed them and blaming a group is just wrong. Sorry for thinking we had evolved to blame the people who deserve it not just the masses who may have a few things in common with them (gender).

Ghost Buster

nicki116 wrote: »

Not all Catholics disprove of gays,).

Then you need to rethink your claim of being catholic.

seb65

nicki116 wrote: »

Not all Catholics/religious people disprove of gays, I for instance have tonnes of gay friends and love gay people their fun and its certainly interesting having a guy to turn to for boyfriend advice .

To lump us all in together is to generalize just like people tend to generalize why all abortions are wrong and to assume that those who disprove of it are religious or don't understand how the woman feels, I had an unplanned pregnancy when I was 18 and miscarried it was the wrong time for me but I didn't blame the child I was shocked and scared but if I killed my baby it would have been a thousand times worse for me because then it would have been my fault. I would have made that decision and it would have been wrong to do so just because I was scared because the fear passed and I started to figure it out what I would do what I would tell people etc.

I believe that we should have better prepared services in the case of an emergency but abortion on demand is to objective children to whether they have enough value to be allowed to live because we don't want one now or because its not convenient for us to have one is selfish and an abuse of our rights.

Why is this the only women's right I hear of us having or being abused, what about equal pay or treatment? Or men's rights, if your married or in a long term relationship, shouldn't your partner have the right to an opinion? We are not uterus's with legs but our decision effects other people not just ourselves so its wrong to discard that.

Lastly why are pro-life sites the only ones with facts supporting them and how has no one else noticed this. Three abortions is considered the limit because your body can't take it. Your more susceptible to cancer, miscarriages, infertility and decreased sexual pleasure if there's cervical/vaginal scarring and that's from one abortion, each one just increases the risks for future pregnancies. Abortion is not a form of contraception, its meant to be a last resort, contraceptives if properly used are 96-99% effective and some aren't 100% simply because of human error in using them or factory defects. If you have no intention of ever having kids get sterilized some can be reversed not all so whatever your decision its your decision to have sex be aware of the risks and if you don't wanna take the risks don't have it, use protection or get sterilized its your decision don't make an innocent child pay for it.

I am a woman, pro-choice and a Catholic, I don't hate myself or anyone else you may have your own issues with males or the church but what they did doesn't change my essential beliefs or just define me I decide what defines me and I don't define myself by belittling the views of men because I have a uterus and they don't or some stuffy old guys turned out to be monsters and stuff that happened to women in the past. If old grievances mean so much to you then fair enough but don't shove it down my throat or anyone elses and I don't know one man who hates women, people tend to hate the individual who harmed them and blaming a group is just wrong. Sorry for thinking we had evolved to blame the people who deserve it not just the masses who may have a few things in common with them (gender).

You are not pro-choice. Pro-choice means the woman gets to choose to have a child. Even for those so-called selfish reasons of it's not convenient for us now. Of course, these reasons could include: poverty; being in an abusive relationship with the child's father; extreme judgment and bullying by others.

To say you like gay people because they are fun is extremely patronizing. People who identify as gay are more than your sounding board for boyfriend advice or your source of entertainment.

brummytom

I'll admit I haven't read all 44 pages of this, so I'm sure this will have been said a billion times... But the Catholic Church teaches the 'principle of double effect' - that is, if the mother's life is in danger, the church has no opposition to the baby being aborted, so long as the intention is to save the mother, and not merely to kill the child/foetus.

The doctor wasn't acting as a Christian. Perhaps the law's too vague or teaching not clear, I'm not sure. But to use this as an excuse to bash to church - this goes directly against their own teachings - ignores the fact that it was ultimately the doctor who made the decision. It's their job to save lives, however they see fit to do so.

franktheplank

Im glad to see some of the radical feminist brigade on this thread. Im sick of being labelled as extreme right wing or extreme catholic on abortion debates (im neither)

We often forget their is an extreme feminist brigade who have a whole set of crazy views all of their own. But to question feminism is like being racist or homophobic, right poeticseraphim?

"It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the mail has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples." Valerie Jean Solanas

Ghost Buster

franktheplank wrote: »

Im glad to see some of the radical feminist brigade on this thread. Im sick of being labelled as extreme right wing or extreme catholic on abortion debates (im neither)

We often forget their is an extreme feminist brigade who have a whole set of crazy views all of their own. But to question feminism is like being racist or homophobic, right poeticseraphim?

"It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the mail has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples." Valerie Jean Solanas

To be fair though isisgoddess/powerful princess is one and the same person and the only hyperfeminist on here.

franktheplank

Ghost Buster wrote: »

To be fair though isisgoddess/powerful princess is one and the same person and the only hyperfeminist on here.

But it's an ideology that unsurprisingly we hear very little of, yet if you're pro-life there's an assumption (read the forum) that you're an extreme catholic or some right wing misogynist.

Here's some more of the extreme end of the pro-choice feminist spectrum. This lady, a college lecturer in women's studies, wanted forced abortion of boys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Daly

seb65

franktheplank wrote: »

Im glad to see some of the radical feminist brigade on this thread. Im sick of being labelled as extreme right wing or extreme catholic on abortion debates (im neither)

We often forget their is an extreme feminist brigade who have a whole set of crazy views all of their own. But to question feminism is like being racist or homophobic, right poeticseraphim?

"It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the mail has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples." Valerie Jean Solanas

I agree that retaining the mail is not important, especially since it's mainly junk mail.

Ghost Buster

franktheplank wrote: »

But it's an ideology that unsurprisingly we hear very little of, yet if you're pro-life there's an assumption (read the forum) that you're an extreme catholic or some right wing misogynist.

Here's some more of the extreme end of the pro-choice feminist spectrum. This lady, a college lecturer in women's studies, wanted forced abortion of boys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Daly

Well it is the more vocal catholic pro life type that gets the most coverage and indeed representation in The Dail. There are non religious pro life folk but they dont have a god given right and duty to force their opinions on everybody.
The megafeminist nutter minority get ignored for that very reason, they are a nutty minority:)

partyatmygaff

franktheplank wrote: »

But it's an ideology that unsurprisingly we hear very little of, yet if you're pro-life there's an assumption (read the forum) that you're an extreme catholic or some right wing misogynist.

Here's some more of the extreme end of the pro-choice feminist spectrum. This lady, a college lecturer in women's studies, wanted forced abortion of boys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Daly

That'd almost be a comical display of madness if it wasn't so disgustingly hateful.

franktheplank

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Well it is the more vocal catholic pro life type that gets the most coverage and indeed representation in The Dail. There are non religious pro life folk but they dont have a god given right and duty to force their opinions on everybody.
The megafeminist nutter minority get ignored for that very reason, they are a nutty minority:)

Im sorry but there has been so many references to the extremist religious groups I think it's only fair we look at what the extremist feminist crowd are up to.

It's not fair that one side can be held up repeatedly as an example while the other is quietly brushed under the carpet.

Ghost Buster

franktheplank wrote: »

Im sorry but there has been so many references to the extremist religious groups I think it's only fair we look at what the extremist feminist crowd are up to.

It's not fair that one side can be held up repeatedly as an example while the other is quietly brushed under the carpet.

The other doesnt have a Taoiseach who claims to be one of them

franktheplank

Ghost Buster wrote: »

The other doesnt have a Taoiseach who claims to be one of them

If you really think opus dei or whoever are somehow influencing government policy these days i really think that belongs in the conspiracy forum.

As crazy as the religious extremists might be there still repeatedly referred to here. I've been all but accused of being either a right wing or catholic extremist for putting forward views that would probably be defined as moderately pro-life.

It's no harm to see any viewpoint taken to it's ideological extreme in any debate if only to see what it might tell us about the original viewpoint.

Look at Mary Daly's hatred of men, it's not that much further from saying men should have no say on abortion. Why would they not have a say, because were not worthy in some way?

K-9

franktheplank wrote: »

Im sorry but there has been so many references to the extremist religious groups I think it's only fair we look at what the extremist feminist crowd are up to.

It's not fair that one side can be held up repeatedly as an example while the other is quietly brushed under the carpet.

I'd prefer to ignore both extremes myself rather than give any importance to extremists.

franktheplank

Madam_X wrote: »

If I could ignore the likes of Youth Defence I would... but unfortunately they have too much power to ignore.

I don't think anyone really believes that these groups have much power. And still that doesn't in any way explain why non-religious pro-lifers keep getting compared to them.

franktheplank

Who knows how much of the hyper-feminism is thought on however many women's studies college courses up and down the country. Publicly funded i might add?

I'd be very surprised if they don't teach the radical stuff along with the rest of it (if only for completeness)

Lingua Franca

franktheplank wrote: »

Im sorry but there has been so many references to the extremist religious groups I think it's only fair we look at what the extremist feminist crowd are up to.

It's not fair that one side can be held up repeatedly as an example while the other is quietly brushed under the carpet.

What they're up to? Some American woman who has been dead for 2 years and irrelevant for at least 13? I don't think she's up to much.

Lingua Franca

franktheplank wrote: »

Who knows how much of the hyper-feminism is thought on however many women's studies college courses up and down the country. Publicly funded i might add?

I'd be very surprised if they don't teach the radical stuff along with the rest of it (if only for completeness)

You're really reaching to find something to be offended by here.

kunst nugget

franktheplank wrote: »

Im glad to see some of the radical feminist brigade on this thread. Im sick of being labelled as extreme right wing or extreme catholic on abortion debates (im neither)

We often forget their is an extreme feminist brigade who have a whole set of crazy views all of their own. But to question feminism is like being racist or homophobic, right poeticseraphim?

"It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females. We must begin immediately to do so. Retaining the mail has not even the dubious purpose of reproduction. The male is a biological accident: the Y (male) gene is an incomplete X (female) gene, that is, it has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage. To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples." Valerie Jean Solanas

What's quoting the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic going to achieve? Are you suggesting that this is what all supporters of feminism are like?

Red Pepper

nicki116 wrote: »

Not all Catholics/religious people disprove of gays, I for instance have tonnes of gay friends and love gay people their fun and its certainly interesting having a guy to turn to for boyfriend advice .

Stopped reading after that...I am sure the tonnes are grateful to have you too.

kunst nugget

franktheplank wrote: »

Who knows how much of the hyper-feminism is thought on however many women's studies college courses up and down the country. Publicly funded i might add?

I'd be very surprised if they don't teach the radical stuff along with the rest of it (if only for completeness)

Psst, don't tell anyone but I hear that they teach male castration and male specific mass hypnosis that makes men act all girly and do shyt like washing up and cooking. Shudder, we're doomed!

gozunda

franktheplank wrote: »

Im sorry but there has been so many references to the extremist religious groups I think it's only fair we look at what the extremist feminist crowd are up to.

It's not fair that one side can be held up repeatedly as an example while the other is quietly brushed under the carpet.

Well lets not derail the thread simply because one overt Feminist turned up briefly and was removed.

I havnt see the 'extremist feminist crowd' standing at street corners with their favourite pictures of aborted foetuses or pushing leaflets thru my letterbox. But then maybe I live off the beaten track!

The religious element is much more prevalent in this country when it comes to attempting any change with regard to woman's reproductive health.

Personaly I can't think of a single reason they have any say in the matter tbh.

poeticseraphim

franktheplank wrote: »

I don't think anyone really believes that these groups have much power. And still that doesn't in any way explain why non-religious pro-lifers keep getting compared to them.

I hate to tell you this ..but they have ads all over youtubeFirst,
One of them starts of.... abortion is not a treatment for anything abortion does not cure cancer. I kid you not.

It is tough to justify a pro -life stance if you accept the science.

Fetuses are not capable of consciousness until the third trimester and most likely remain unconscious until birth. As one neurologist scientist puts it:

"the fetus and neonate appears incapable of ... experiencing or generating 'true' emotion or any semblance of higher order, forebrain mediated cognitive activity."

One anti-choicer arguement is "Human life begins at conception."

False. Human life actually begins prior to conception, because each sperm and egg cell is a living thing. It is more relevant to discuss when sentience, or self-awareness, begins. In 2000, the British House of Lords established a Commission of Inquiry into Fetal Sentience, which estimated that higher-level brain development begins to commence at about 23 weeks.


I would argue for abortion on demand up until 12 weeks.

. At 13 weeks gestation, the brain stem and thalamus are not functional, anyway. Working connections between the thalamus and the higher cortex do not begin to form until about 20 to 26 weeks, with significant development of neuronal activity continuing after birth

Scientists estimate that 55 to 65% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted in the first few days or weeks of a pregnancy, usually without the woman ever knowing she was pregnant. It's called "fetal wastage."


Why don't we express shock and horror over miscarriage in the way we do a cot death ???


An anti-choice stance makes little sense to me once you take the concept of 'soul' out of it or the religious teachings of when life begins.

When does this 'life' become sentient or a person??? That is the question . When does it start to feel pain???

Pain expert Dr. K.J.S. Anand believes the threshold for fetal pain is 20 weeks.

In the United States, 88% of all abortions occur in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy, and over 98% are done by 20 weeks.

Again I am only in favor of abortion up to 12 weeks .

But Science does not really back up an anti-choice stance from conception. So i think that is why people associate it with the religious right.

And youth defense have lied so much regarding different cases or doctoring pictures....some are a doctored drawn in fetus.....with the mother's uterus blanked out ..it is as if only through these myths one can construct an logical argument.

Once you strip religion away and myth away there is no logic to a lot of it.

And i would suggest that if you think 'I' am a feminazi as you called me earlier in the thread...that you are either quite extreme yourself or trolling (was that you in the POLL thread:rolleyes::D?).

I have not seen any extremist feminist groups at all????

Aiel

http://areluctantsinner.blogspot.ie/2012/11/anti-catholic-hysteria-reaches-new.html

Theres an interesting quote from one of the comments under the article itself that if Abortion comes in because 1 person died its a tragedy but if thousands die from Abortion it will be a Statistic and not tragic!!!

franktheplank

Lingua Franca wrote: »

You're really reaching to find something to be offended by here.

Actually as an ex-sociology student (im ashamed i know) I know that studying feminist theory is mandatory on a lot of social science courses in this country.

We can all talk about church influence, but i think its equally as valid to ask why so many of our social workers, care workers, public servants are thought feminist ideology.

One of the matra's of feminism is that 'the personal is political' so the abortion debate isn't just about science or morals for many people it's also about power.

franktheplank

gozunda wrote: »

Well lets not derail the thread simply because one overt Feminist turned up briefly and was removed.

But it's ok for people here to go on and on and on about church influence and right wing extremism.

Maybe you don't like it when the spotlight is shone back on you're ideologies?

gozunda

Aiel wrote: »

http://areluctantsinner.blogspot.ie/2012/11/anti-catholic-hysteria-reaches-new.html

Theres an interesting quote from one of the comments under the article itself that if Abortion comes in because 1 person died its a tragedy but if thousands die from Abortion it will be a Statistic and not tragic!!!

I think the quote was

One person dies and it is a tragedy.
One million die and it is a statistic.

What a deranged article - now that really is conspiracy theory gone mad. Yer one "Lynda" in comments are truly exemplary ... remember its all a plot to besmirch the name of catholicism....!

franktheplank

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I hate to tell you this ..but they have ads all over youtubeFirst,
One of them starts of.... abortion is not a treatment for anything abortion does not cure cancer. I kid you not.

Well there's lots of crazy stuff on youtube that doesn't mean anything.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

It is tough to justify a pro -life stance if you accept the science.

If i except your science? I don't get where you're coming from i thought you were all about the it's a womans body, it's a woman choice. Thats not very scientific, so which is it?

So do you think it's wrong for a woman to grieve a miscarriage, that's pretty sick

poeticseraphim wrote: »

And i would suggest that if you think 'I' am a feminazi as you called me earlier in the thread...that you are either quite extreme yourself or trolling (was that you in the POLL thread:rolleyes::D?).

I have not seen any extremist feminist groups at all????

I didn't call you that and i don't know what you're talking about. I haven't seen any extremist catholic or right wings groups on here yet there's plenty of discussion about them.

Lingua Franca

franktheplank wrote: »

Actually as an ex-sociology student (im ashamed i know) I know that studying feminist theory is mandatory on a lot of social science courses in this country.

We can all talk about church influence, but i think its equally as valid to ask why so many of our social workers, care workers, public servants are thought feminist ideology.

One of the matra's of feminism is that 'the personal is political' so the abortion debate isn't just about science or morals for many people it's also about power.

Without wishing to Godwin up the thread, I was a history student...

Why shouldn't feminist theory be taught? Would you rather that feminist theory wasn't taught at all? Do you think it's riling wymyn up to once again (not) burn their bras and yell that all men are rapists? That it has no relevance on a sociology course?

Or do you just hate and fear feminism?
'
To be honest, I thought radical angry feminism died out in the 80s but if they're teaching it in college and it's negatively affecting social workers, care workers and public servants you'd think we'd have heard something about it about by now.

Lingua Franca

franktheplank wrote: »

So do you think it's wrong for a woman to grieve a miscarriage, that's pretty sick

...What? You're projecting onto someone and then judging them for it. That's pretty sick.

I didn't call you that and i don't know what you're talking about. I haven't seen any extremist catholic or right wings groups on here yet there's plenty of discussion about them.

Take a wee look at Aiel's post and click through to the link. Read the comments, even. Go on, we'll wait for you.

poeticseraphim

franktheplank wrote: »

Well there's lots of crazy stuff on youtube that doesn't mean anything.



If i except your science? I don't get where you're coming from i thought you were all about the it's a womans body, it's a woman choice. Thats not very scientific, so which is it?

So do you think it's wrong for a woman to grieve a miscarriage, that's pretty sick



I didn't call you that and i don't know what you're talking about. I haven't seen any extremist catholic or right wings groups on here yet there's plenty of discussion about them.

I don't think it is wrong for women to grieve a miscarriage...I have helped friends grieve....but I have have relatives who lost a baby and friends who have lost adult children...it is not the same.

You said feminazi :-P

franktheplank

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Why shouldn't feminist theory be taught? Would you rather that feminist theory wasn't taught at all? Do you think it's riling wymyn up to once again (not) burn their bras and yell that all men are rapists? That it has no relevance on a sociology course?

Or do you just hate and fear feminism?
'

But sure if no one takes any notice of the radical feminist stuff why should they take any notice of the extremist religious stuff. Why are we talking about that so much?

Personally i don't think anybody takes much notice of either. Feminism is a dead ideology, they don't even call it that any more, it's 'women's studies' or rich white women studies if you ask me.

franktheplank

Lingua Franca wrote: »

...What? You're projecting onto someone and then judging them for it. That's pretty sick.

Read her post it's not a projection it's pretty clear one form of grief is more valid than the other.

franktheplank

[QUOTE=poeticseraphim;81789681

You said feminazi :-P[/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure i didn't i think i called you something along the lines of a pseudo feminist wanna be beat poet, which may sound harsh but considering you claimed i was a misogynist who only wanted to save the male babies i think it's pretty fair.

Anyway it's all pretty irrelevant as you're a scientist now

Lingua Franca

I honestly can't tell where you coming from here, other than that you seem to have a problem with feminism. What is the point you're trying to make?

Lingua Franca

franktheplank wrote: »

Read her post it's not a projection it's pretty clear one form of grief is more valid than the other.

I did read it and it says nothing of the sort.

franktheplank

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I honestly can't tell where you coming from here, other than that you seem to have a problem with feminism. What is the point you're trying to make?

The point which i've quite clearly made is that this thread is full of references to the church and right wing ideology, if you want to question there influence on the abortion debate fair enough, but surely then you have to allow a questioning of feminist ideologies?

Do we just not like to hear that?

franktheplank

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Why don't we express shock and horror over miscarriage in the way we do a cot death ???

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I did read it and it says nothing of the sort.

Can you explain to me how this is not saying that a miscarriage is a less valid form of grief than the death of a child?

It may seem pedantic but i think it's an important point as it refers clearly to the validity of life before birth.

Lingua Franca

franktheplank wrote: »

The point which i've quite clearly made is that this thread is full of references to the church and right wing ideology, if you want to question there influence on the abortion debate fair enough, but surely then you have to allow a questioning of feminist ideologies?

Do we just not like to hear that?

What's this "we" you speak of? I can only speak for myself, like every other person on this forum.

This thread is full of references to the church for obvious reasons, being that Savita's husband alleges that she was refused her request for abortion because he was told "This is a Catholic country". And along comes someone linking linking a Catholic blog full of Catholic ideology, which you have yet to address.

You alone brought up feminism ideology after Isisgodess came in trolling twice with hers and was shut out quick, and you're banging on about it quite a bit, but all you've come up with is some deceased American woman.

You're also flip flopping from "radical feminists" to "feminists" without distinction.

franktheplank wrote: »

Can you explain to me how this is not saying that a miscarriage is a less valid form of grief than the death of a child?

Yes, easily. It is a question. Poeticsepraphim asked a question. There's a huge difference between a question and a statement of fact. You were asked a question and rather than answer it you started putting words into people's mouths and then stating how ill it made you feel.

franktheplank wrote: »

It may seem pedantic but i think it's an important point as it refers clearly to the validity of life before birth.

It is pedantic. You've yet to answer the question and you deliberately ignored that which went before the question, pointing out that miscarriages happen frequently.

I said it before, you are really, really stretching to find things to get offended about.

franktheplank

Lingua Franca wrote: »

This thread is full of references to the church for obvious reasons, being that Savita's husband alleges that she was refused her request for abortion because he was told "This is a Catholic country". And along comes someone linking linking a Catholic blog full of Catholic ideology, which you have yet to address.

Well firstly we don't know who said this and in what context. Also there has been plenty of debate here and throughout the media about the role of Catholic ideology in the abortion debate. I don't have a problem with that. I have a problem that we're not putting feminist ideologies under the same spotlight.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

You're also flip flopping from "radical feminists" to "feminists" without distinction.

Well as far as im concerned their equally useless and outdated ideologies, just like extreme Catholicism and right wing ideologies. It doesn't take from the fact that this thread is full of talk about one side of the debate only.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Yes, easily. It is a question. Poeticsepraphim asked a question. There's a huge difference between a question and a statement of fact.

Im pretty sure that's a rhetorical question and as such is a statement. Or is that too pedantic for you too? And im stretching for outrage, what about all the children that have died in state care in last few years, there's been hundred's, where's the outrage there if it doesn't fit with a pro-choice agenda. Is that stretching for outrage?

franktheplank

Madam_X wrote: »

They are very powerful unfortunately. But I agree it's wrong to lump moderate pro-lifers in with them. I wouldnt be "abortions for all" myself.

Thank you. Now how many pro-lifers do you really think would deny a woman whose already having a miscarriage an abortion?

poeticseraphim

franktheplank wrote: »

If i except your science? I don't get where you're coming from i thought you were all about the it's a womans body, it's a woman choice. Thats not very scientific, so which is it?

.

You don't accept science?
I wanted to take this separately.

You see this is the problem. It is like people who don't believe in evolution. Science is not something you can except or not logically. It is not your science or mine. It is Science. You can say evolution is MY Science but it makes any further discussion impossible.

And the right of a women's choice over her body outweighs the right of the fetus by the weight of scientific proofs that shows a fetus in the early trimester is not sentient. It lacks personage.

"the fetus and neonate is incapable of ... experiencing or generating 'true' emotion or any semblance of higher order, forebrain mediated cognitive activity."

That is not my science ..it is an expert neurologist ...you are using language which indicates ownership 'your' over something that is in fact universal. It is like when anti-choicers interchange the term 'Human' with 'Human Being' a flake of dandruff is human..a group of cells can be human....but a human being???

Mary Anne Warren, in her article arguing for the permissibility of abortion,[1] holds that moral opposition to abortion is based on the following argument:

It is wrong to kill innocent human beings.
The embryo is an innocent human being.
Hence it is wrong to kill the embryo.

Warren, however, thinks that 'human being' is used in different senses in (1) and (2). In (1), 'human being' is used in a moral sense to mean a 'person', a 'full-fledged member of the moral community'. In (2), 'human being' means 'biological human'. That the embryo is a biologically human organism or animal is uncontroversial, Warren holds. But it does not follow that the embryo is a person, and it is persons that have rights, such as the right to life.[2]

Back to Science
When you deny or reject 'my science' ...it automatically makes the opposition wonder well then what discapline or doctrine are they basing their stance on? Is it just a feeling an emotion?

When one rejects what is scientific and logical then you cannot blame people for thinking it might be a spiritual belief.

For instance the idea that life begins at conception is now illogical as embryological data shows that conception occurs over time as a process and not in an instant ...it is not an event we now know but a process....of events....

When one introduces the science the anti-choice argument for early trimester seems weak...

You should read Roe vrs Wade...the influence of embryology was a huge factor in the outcome. ...science guided the verdict

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

The guise of religion runs deep ...many anti-choicers believe abortion actually is the same as the killing of an adult human being...it leads me to believe that they are basing their stance on the idea of 'ensoulment' taught by the church for so long. Which is obviously something we cannot hold a stance about abortion on.

Lingua Franca

franktheplank wrote: »

Well firstly we don't know who said this and in what context.

The consultant. Saying his hands were tied by the law of the land. This has been covered extensively.

Also there has been plenty of debate here and throughout the media about the role of Catholic ideology in the abortion debate. I don't have a problem with that.

You quite obviously do, you've said so many times. In fact, it's why we're having this discussion.

I have a problem that we're not putting feminist ideologies under the same spotlight.

Feminist ideologies are not in question here. They are not in the spotlight. They have only been brought up by you. Unless you can show me where someone other than isisgodess has been banging on about feminism?

Well as far as im concerned their equally useless and outdated ideologies, just like extreme Catholicism and right wing ideologies. It doesn't take from the fact that this thread is full of talk about one side of the debate only.

This thread is full of both sides of the debate, it is you who is bringing in another angle.

Im pretty sure that's a rhetorical question and as such is a statement. Or is that too pedantic for you too?

Yes.

And im stretching for outrage, what about all the children that have died in state care in last few years, there's been hundred's, where's the outrage there if it doesn't fit with a pro-choice agenda. Is that stretching for outrage?

Absolutely. Now you're dragging in more off topic stuff (about which there is plenty of outrage, from all kinds of people).


Any chance you could stay on topic?

ASVM

Why are people getting so off the point on this forum? I didn't mean to cause offence when I said I spoke as a woman but I stand over everything I have said. I am not a fanatic or a man hater just a woman who wants women to be fully respected and listened to during their pregnancy.Also to receive the best and most timely medical care possible.

This brings me to another point, women cannot have an immediate D and C or induction( following miscarriage) if they present to a hospital here at weekends. This was my situation and I know of other women who have experienced the same. It is traumatic enough to miscarry without having to be sent home from the hospital only to have to return again after the weekend. In my case a second opinion was citied as the reason for this and as it was a Saturday nobody was available until after the weekend.It is just not good enough in my opinion. Does anyone know if this is normal practice in other countries? Also I asked for a D and C but was not granted one, instead I had to give birth which was a very traumatic experience for me although I am sure many other women on this forum have been through similar experiences.

blacklilly

Interesting to note that the pro choice side were not particularly vocal when it was revealed that some hse and other state funded agencies were advising women not to disclose to their doctors their full medical history in reference to abortions.
Abortion can cause complications in later wanted pregnancies, should a women have major complications and die while pregnant and the medical team not be aware of her full history it will simply be explained as pregnancy complications when it could very well be related to the fact that the abortion caused her internal damage but then again the pro choice side don't want this high lighted do they? So much for women's rights.
This case is sad and should not have happened. I don't believe however that due to this one tragic case that legislation be made allowing abortion. This women was entitled to have her pregnancy terminated but it seems the doctor didn't follow medical counsel guidelines on the matter.
As a young women I fully support women's rights but I do not believe abortion is a right or an entitlement.
With respect to the grieving process of say having a miscarriage versus your 10 year old child dying is akin to saying to parents of a 6month old that has passed...."it could've been worse, sure aren't you lucky you didn't know the kid that well"

Lingua Franca

I'm sorry to hear of what you went through, ASVM, that must have been awful.

I can only speak for the NHS because I'm not familiar with D&C's in other countries and yes, it is normal practice there too. I was sent home after my miscarriage and told to come back the next week but I ended up not needing a D&C in the end.

Since general anesthesia is usually required they need to slot you in when an anaesthesiologist is available and at the weekends they tend to be on call for emergencies only. A D&C is usually not considered an emergency.

poeticseraphim

ASVM wrote: »

Why are people getting so off the point on this forum? I didn't mean to cause offence when I said I spoke as a woman but I stand over everything I have said. I am not a fanatic or a man hater just a woman who wants women to be fully respected and listened to during their pregnancy.Also to receive the best and most timely medical care possible.

This brings me to another point, women cannot have an immediate D and C or induction( following miscarriage) if they present to a hospital here at weekends. This was my situation and I know of other women who have experienced the same. It is traumatic enough to miscarry without having to be sent home from the hospital only to have to return again after the weekend. In my case a second opinion was citied as the reason for this and as it was a Saturday nobody was available until after the weekend.It is just not good enough in my opinion. Does anyone know if this is normal practice in other countries? Also I asked for a D and C but was not granted one, instead I had to give birth which was a very traumatic experience for me although I am sure many other women on this forum have been through similar experiences.

I had no idea about that. I have no idea regarding other countries maybe someone else can answer. Was it always the case here? It seems very strange?

You are right it is not good enough.


Does anyone else know anything about this?