Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion Discussion

Options
1…3132343637…334

Comments

  • Options
    #992
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    His parents had the "right" to kill him through abortion on the day that he was born.

    Lucas is a rare case, he's a healthy child. Its not the normal outcome for births at 23 weeks, death is common, the link you provided shows that at 23 weeks only 19% of babies live, of those who do a signifcant amount will have lifelong issues. So Lucas is a nice happy story but he's rare so lets not forget that.


  • Options
    #993
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Birth is the difference. Why a woman would wait 23 weeks, give birth to a baby only to then kill it when she could have had an abortion is a bit barmy.

    You didn't answer my question, do you think the Tfmr families are murderers?

    Why is birth the difference in killing what was proven to be viable child?

    Are you saying that 2 O'Clock on a Sunday afternoon you'd have no problems at all tearing Lucas' body apart piece by piece until he died but at 3 O'Clock (30 minutes after he was born) on the same afternoon murdering Lucas in an identical manner would be an act of criminal barbarity?

    What has birth got to do with this?


  • Options
    #994
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Why is birth the difference in killing what was proven to be viable child?

    Are you saying that 2 O'Clock on a Sunday afternoon you'd have no problems at all tearing Lucas' body apart piece by piece until he died but at 3 O'Clock (30 minutes after he was born) on the same afternoon murdering Lucas in an identical manner would be an act of criminal barbarity?

    What has birth got to do with this?

    There is no proof at all that Lucas was a viable child. Premature births are a lottery.


  • Options
    #995
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    eviltwin wrote: »
    There is no proof at all that Lucas was a viable child. Premature births are a lottery.
    Other than the fact that he survived and is now perfectly healthy?

    He was just as "viable" as you or I.

    EDIT:
    Interested in an answer to this:

    Are you saying that 2 O'Clock on a Sunday afternoon you'd have no problems at all tearing Lucas' body apart piece by piece until he died but at 3 O'Clock (30 minutes after he was born) on the same afternoon murdering Lucas in an identical manner would be an act of criminal barbarity?


  • Options
    #996
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Other than the fact that he survived and is now perfectly healthy?

    He was just as "viable" as you or I.

    No one could have predicted that at the time though, the odds were stacked against him. He was more likely to end up dead anyway or have serious developmental issues.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #997
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Lucas is a rare case, he's a healthy child. Its not the normal outcome for births at 23 weeks, death is common, the link you provided shows that at 23 weeks only 19% of babies live, of those who do a signifcant amount will have lifelong issues. So Lucas is a nice happy story but he's rare so lets not forget that.

    So - 1 in 5 unborn children aborted at 23 weeks would have survived outside the womb. Killing these potential human beings doesn't bother you?


  • Options
    #998
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    What has birth got to do with this?

    Everything. You're missing the point here. Nobody here ever wants anyone to go through an abortion and that includes the foetus. The thing is though no matter how much we want something to be case it doesn't mean reality is going to oblige. In different circumstances the story for Lucas and his mother could have been very different. It's not pretty but then prettiness has nothing to do with something being wrong or right. In this specific case the child was wanted. The woman was willing to see through the pregnancy regardless of the cost to her personal health and circumstances. The second her pregnancy is over the child isn't the burden on her bodily integrity. So it becomes murder. Until then though it's murky and it ain't pretty but it certainly ain't murder. And I'm sure if there was an immediate risk to Lucas's mother's life that you'd agree. That's the grey line.


  • Options
    #999
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »

    Are you saying that 2 O'Clock on a Sunday afternoon you'd have no problems at all tearing Lucas' body apart piece by piece until he died but at 3 O'Clock (30 minutes after he was born) on the same afternoon murdering Lucas in an identical manner would be an act of criminal barbarity?

    I'll answer your question, I'd appreciate an answer to my earlier one.

    First of all, I would have a problem with the killing of a live born child, of course I would. I'm not too happy about the idea of abortions at this stage either. For a whole lot of reasons I would prefer abortions in the first trimester. However I understand there are things that become apparant during a pregnancy that only show on a later scan. Do I think those people should be denied abortion? No. Do I judge them for it? No. I don't like it as I say, but I have more concern for the impact on the mother than on the baby.


  • Options
    #1000
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    While what you say is not completely without merit it does nothing to address my point which was:

    Again, not sure why killing Lucas an hour before he was born premature isn't murder when killing him in exactly the same manner an hour later is.

    Its not murder because the law doesn't define a born human until it has taken a breath. Do you want to redefine murder? You know infanticide is defined differently from murder too, and carries a different penalty on indictment? What's your suggested penalty on indictment for abortion, and is it to be imposed on the woman and medical personnel?


  • Options
    #1001
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    So - 1 in 5 unborn children aborted at 23 weeks would have survived outside the womb. Killing these potential human beings doesn't bother you?

    No it doesn't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1002
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Must be a slow news day in Israel.


  • Options
    #1003
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,489 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Since "some" people have sighted abortion survivors as why abortion is wrong I thought I'd throw this out there just to give another spin on things.

    When my parents married it was very much catholic Ireland, there were no condoms freely available...hell that didn't happen for a long long time after..90's anyway.

    Anyway, prior to my mother getting pregnant with me she was sick, when she was pregnant she got even sicker and things were extremely touch and go for some time. When I was born it came very very close to the line for both me and more importantly her.

    Even after I was born there were very good odds that I'd die,

    Now she already had 5 children, so had she died it would have left 5 kids without a mother. Now I'm a realist so the way I see it had she decided to have an abortion back then rather then put her life and the well being of her existing 5 kids at risk then this would have been perfectly understandable.

    Had she had an abortion then clearly I would not now exist but the risks were great that she'd have left kids without a mother.

    In more recent times I've seen the other side of the coin, I've seen a person proceed with a pregnancy knowing that the pregnancy could potentially kill them, I've seen the pregnancy kill them and their fetus and leave their three kids without a mother and their husband without a wife. I can tell you its not a pretty situation.

    I've seen the hardship that it can cause and even 2-3 years on how much pain they all feel about the loss of their mother knowing that the death could have been avoided.


  • Options
    #1004
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I'll answer your question, I'd appreciate an answer to my earlier one.

    First of all, I would have a problem with the killing of a live born child, of course I would. I'm not too happy about the idea of abortions at this stage either. For a whole lot of reasons I would prefer abortions in the first trimester. However I understand there are things that become apparant during a pregnancy that only show on a later scan. Do I think those people should be denied abortion? No. Do I judge them for it? No. I don't like it as I say, but I have more concern for the impact on the mother than on the baby.

    Are you intentionally avoiding the question? Or do you not understand?

    I never mentioned the above. I'll try to make this clearer. You have Lucas - a real-life, viable healthy baby born prematurely at 23-weeks; and now living perfectly healthily and happily as an infant..

    23 weeks is when it is still perfectly legal to have an abortion for elective reasons in the UK, which is where he was born. 23 weeks is also at the stage when a surgical abortion will have to be carried out. D&E abortion is recommended by the NHS after 15 weeks. This procedure involves inserting a large forceps into the woman and blindly ripping and tearing flesh and bones of the 23 week old foetus. As the foetuses head/skull is then crushed into pieces to enable easier extraction.

    if Lucas' parents had decided that they didn't want him to live he could have had his life legally taken from him in this brutal fashion on the day that he was actually born . You claim that this doesn't bother you. However, if on the very same day on which he was actually born the very same child, that looked exactly the same, that was at an identical stage of development as the butchered and discarded foetus was killed in an identical manner then this would bother you greatly.

    So I'd like you to explain how killing Lucas in the first scenario is so drastically morally different to killing Lucas in the second scenario.


  • Options
    #1005
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    eviltwin wrote: »
    No it doesn't.
    Why not? Does cruelty to animals bother you?


  • Options
    #1006
    YumCha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 519 ✭✭✭YumCha


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    23 weeks is when it is still perfectly legal to have an abortion for elective reasons in the UK, which is where he was born.

    Actually no it's not:
    Under UK law, an abortion can usually only be carried out during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy as long as certain criteria are met (see below).

    The Abortion Act 1967 covers the UK mainland (England, Scotland and Wales) but not Northern Ireland. The law states that:
    - abortions must be carried out in a hospital or a specialist licensed clinic
    - two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy

    From: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Abortion/Pages/Introduction.aspx


  • Options
    #1007
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Are you intentionally avoiding the question? Or do you not understand?

    I never mentioned the above. I'll try to make this clearer. You have Lucas - a real-life, viable healthy baby born prematurely at 23-weeks; and now living perfectly healthily and happily as an infant..

    23 weeks is when it is still perfectly legal to have an abortion for elective reasons in the UK, which is where he was born. 23 weeks is also at the stage when a surgical abortion will have to be carried out. D&E abortion is recommended by the NHS after 15 weeks. This procedure involves inserting a large forceps into the woman and blindly ripping and tearing flesh and bones of the 23 week old foetus. As the foetuses head/skull is then crushed into pieces to enable easier extraction.

    if Lucas' parents had decided that they didn't want him to live he could have had his life legally taken from him in this brutal fashion on the day that he was actually born . You claim that this doesn't bother you. However, if on the very same day on which he was actually born the very same child, that looked exactly the same, that was at an identical stage of development as the butchered and discarded foetus was killed in an identical manner then this would bother you greatly.

    So I'd like you to explain how killing Lucas in the first scenario is so drastically morally different to killing Lucas in the second scenario.


    ...and now we're back to the false dichotomy/loaded question round....


  • Options
    #1008
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    23 weeks is when it is still perfectly legal to have an abortion for elective reasons in the UK, which is where he was born. 23 weeks is also at the stage when a surgical abortion will have to be carried out. D&E abortion is recommended by the NHS after 15 weeks. This procedure involves inserting a large forceps into the woman and blindly ripping and tearing flesh and bones of the 23 week old foetus. As the foetuses head/skull is then crushed into pieces to enable easier extraction.

    Once the foetus is dead, what is wrong with using the safest method to remove it?


  • Options
    #1009
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    YumCha wrote: »
    Actually no it's not:



    From: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Abortion/Pages/Introduction.aspx

    Which in reality means you go to your GP, tell them you want an abortion, they sign a form and refer you to an abortion clinic where an abortionist adds there signature. If you go to the clinic directly the first abortionist signs off on you and the second one doesn't even have to meet you before they sign off on your abortion.

    In fact, it is often the case the abortion forms are pre-signed off on.


  • Options
    #1010
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    And because those options are in place I feel a lot safer as a woman of childbearing age here in the UK than I did in Ireland. Nuff said.


  • Options
    #1011
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Which in reality means you go to your GP, tell them you want an abortion, they sign a form and refer you to an abortion clinic where an abortionist adds there signature. If you go to the clinic directly the first abortionist signs off on you and the second one doesn't even have to meet you before they sign off on your abortion.

    In fact, it is often the case the abortion forms are pre-signed off on.

    Interesting. Referred to as fact, but with no evidence provided. Careful there or you could start a new religion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1012
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    Interesting. Referred to as fact, but with no evidence provided. Careful there or you could start a new religion.
    What do you require evidence of exactly?


  • Options
    #1013
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Which in reality means you go to your GP, tell them you want an abortion, they sign a form and refer you to an abortion clinic where an abortionist adds there signature. If you go to the clinic directly the first abortionist signs off on you and the second one doesn't even have to meet you before they sign off on your abortion.

    In fact, it is often the case the abortion forms are pre-signed off on.

    What do you think women who do not want to remain pregnant should do?


  • Options
    #1014
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    lazygal wrote: »
    What do you think women who do not want to remain pregnant should do?
    Dunno, should a woman who gives birth to a disabled child and doesn't want it also have it killed?


  • Options
    #1015
    coolhull
    Registered Users Posts: 49,731 ✭✭✭✭coolhull


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Dunno, should a woman who gives birth to a disabled child and doesn't want it also have it killed?
    Sadly, you're sinking lower here, BB. What is it they say about not digging when your'e already in a hole?


  • Options
    #1016
    YumCha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 519 ✭✭✭YumCha


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    What do you require evidence of exactly?

    That women in the UK at 23 weeks pregnant can have an abortion for 'elective reasons' as you're claiming.


  • Options
    #1017
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Dunno, should a woman who gives birth to a disabled child and doesn't want it also have it killed?

    Pretty sure infanticide is illegal in most countries.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1018
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    What do you require evidence of exactly?

    This.
    Brown Bomber wrote:
    In fact, it is often the case the abortion forms are pre-signed off on.


  • Options
    #1019
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    gaynorvader wrote: »
    This.
    How would it change your opinion if I did?


  • Options
    #1020
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    koth wrote: »
    Pretty sure infanticide is illegal in most countries.
    Don't take this the wrong way but I am sure you are aware of the distinction between morality and legality.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1021
    gaynorvader
    Registered Users Posts: 1,630 ✭✭✭gaynorvader


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    How would it change your opinion if I did?

    I just dislike people making stuff up to prove their point. It would certainly lower my opinion of British doctors if you provided evidence that they were doing something like that. It also would raise my opinion of your debating technique were you to post evidence instead of anecdotes and vitriol.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement