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

woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Options
1…4142444647…95

Comments

  • Options
    #1292
    xalot
    Registered Users Posts: 1,097 ✭✭✭xalot


    Have to say, if I were pro life I would not be too impressed with a bishop representing my stance. The Church needs to be taken out of this debate entirely and I find it very irresponsible of journalists to be going to the Church for 'quotes'.

    I'm strongly pro choice, though for me abortion shouldn't be allowed once the feutus is viable (after 24 weeks), however this doesn't appear to be the issue here.

    The issue for me is that a vulnerable young woman presented with an unwanted pregnancy during her first trimester and was not given any assistance or guidance as to how to proceed. It took the guts of 3 months to get to a place where, due to her mental health, the pregnancy was finally deemed as putting her life 'at risk' but still she was forced to delay a termination and subsequently she had a forced C Section. Now, I dont know, but imagine that at 24 weeks an abortion would be also be incredibly invasive. I'm glad that of the last two options that a baby was brought into the world and hopefully will be healthy and happy.

    However I'm appalled at what this poor woman has had to endure. We are supposed to have procedures for assisting women in these situations and as a country we have failed her massively.


  • Options
    #1293
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    So why was the child saved then ?

    Because the woman was forcibly hydrated until the foetus was viable.


  • Options
    #1294
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    green_screen wrote: »
    Because the woman was forcibly hydrated until the foetus was viable.

    That's how the child was saved, you haven't answered why


  • Options
    #1295
    Its Only Ray Parlour
    Registered Users Posts: 393 ✭✭Its Only Ray Parlour


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    A defenceless child, that has done nothing wrong, also has rights

    The same argument can be used for animals but if you eat meat, then you obviously don't practice what you preach.


  • Options
    #1296
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    That's how the child was saved, you haven't answered why

    Because some medic decided it was a good idea to deny the woman her legal right to an abortion. I'd have thought that was evident.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1297
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    green_screen wrote: »
    Because some medic decided it was a good idea to deny the woman her legal right to an abortion. I'd have thought that was evident.

    Ethical Medics don't kill one patient to treat anothers demands.


  • Options
    #1298
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »
    The same argument can be used for animals but if you eat meat, then you obviously don't practice what you preach.

    Do you really believe a child is equavalent to an animal ?
    Though some people do seem to care more for animals


  • Options
    #1299
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Ethical Medics don't kill one patient to treat anothers demands.

    'demands?' Fcuking hell. The woman was suicidal.

    The LAW states that she was entitled to an abortion.

    An 'ethical' medic wouldn't have taken the law into his own hands.


  • Options
    #1300
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,749 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Shenshen wrote: »
    How twisted is your mind???

    If a woman becomes suicidal due to an unwanted pregnancy, removing the pregnancy is clearly the first step to get her to recover.
    If a woman is suicidal for other reasons, then your suggested course of action is going to be as efficient as removing the tonsils of a patient with appendicitis.


    The twisted thing is people dismissing psychiatrists because their views don't suit.

    If a woman suffers severe depression after the birth, lets say gets post natal depression, and starts getting suicidal thoughts due to the baby, should the baby be killed as a treatment?
    A woman in the UK who was suffering from PND, jumped in front of a train going 100mph because she was so depressed from a baby that cried a lot and wouldn't sleep at night.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10451374/New-mother-with-post-natal-depression-killed-by-100mph-train.html

    The baby was the cause of the suicidal thoughts and eventual suicide, given the logic used by some for pregnant women who are suicidal, would killing the baby have been the right approach or would more supports to the woman and mental health care be the option?
    btw at Oxford University they came out with killing a baby is no different to killing an unborn and should be allowed, so it could be used to treat suicidal mothers...

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

    Parent should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are "morally irrelevant" and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University argued.


  • Options
    #1301
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    green_screen wrote: »
    The LAW states that she was entitled to an abortion.

    The LAW also saved the child


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1302
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    green_screen wrote: »
    'demands?' Fcuking hell. The woman was suicidal.

    The LAW states that she was entitled to an abortion.

    An 'ethical' medic wouldn't have taken the law into his own hands.

    "Law into their own hands" . . . hmm where have we heard that before


  • Options
    #1303
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    The LAW also saved the child

    Nope. Breaking the law did, actually. An unethical, non-law-abiding medic did.

    But sure, it's grand. Force every woman who's raped to give birth. Cut their bodies open to remove the parasite inside.

    Who cares about the rights of the women, anyway?


  • Options
    #1304
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    green_screen wrote: »
    Nope. Breaking the law did, actually. An unethical, non-law-abiding medic did.

    But sure, it's grand. Force every woman who's raped to give birth. Cut their bodies open to remove the parasite inside.

    Wbo

    Why should people crush childrens sculls and cut them up, because someone demands it ?
    But sure who cares about another human life, as long as someones demands are met.


  • Options
    #1305
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Why should people crush childrens sculls and cut them up, because someone demands it ?

    They're a foetus, not a child. Again.

    Also, abortions don't actually have to involve that. If the woman was given one when she asked, it would have been a couple of pills, not crushing skulls.


  • Options
    #1306
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    green_screen wrote: »
    They're a foetus, not a child. Again.

    Also, abortions don't actually have to involve that. If the woman was given one when she asked, it would have been a couple of pills, not crushing skulls.

    Sure just give them a poison pill, a much more civilised way to kill someone, that makes it ok
    So why was the child saved ?


  • Options
    #1307
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    So why was the child saved ?

    You're repeating yourself. I answered that.


  • Options
    #1308
    Calina
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    I personally don't believe the debate is advanced by referring to a foetus as a parasite, for what it's worth.


  • Options
    #1309
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    green_screen wrote: »
    You're repeating yourself. I answered that.

    No you didn't, you tried to avoid answering it by telling us how the child was saved, not why


  • Options
    #1310
    eeepaulo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,323 ✭✭✭eeepaulo


    xalot wrote: »
    Have to say, if I were pro life I would not be too impressed with a bishop representing my stance. The Church needs to be taken out of this debate entirely and I find it very irresponsible of journalists to be going to the Church for 'quotes'.

    I'm strongly pro choice, though for me abortion shouldn't be allowed once the feutus is viable (after 24 weeks), however this doesn't appear to be the issue here.

    The issue for me is that a vulnerable young woman presented with an unwanted pregnancy during her first trimester and was not given any assistance or guidance as to how to proceed. It took the guts of 3 months to get to a place where, due to her mental health, the pregnancy was finally deemed as putting her life 'at risk' but still she was forced to delay a termination and subsequently she had a forced C Section. Now, I dont know, but imagine that at 24 weeks an abortion would be also be incredibly invasive. I'm glad that of the last two options that a baby was brought into the world and hopefully will be healthy and happy.

    However I'm appalled at what this poor woman has had to endure. We are supposed to have procedures for assisting women in these situations and as a country we have failed her massively.

    The emotive language on both sides isnt helpful, this seems a very well made argument, would someone respond.


  • Options
    #1311
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    No you didn't, you tried to avoid answering it by telling us how the child was saved, not why

    At which point, you repeated your question, I answered, you responded, we got to this point. Keep up :)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1312
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    Calina wrote: »
    I personally don't believe the debate is advanced by referring to a foetus as a parasite, for what it's worth.

    It has to be dehumanised to gloss over the killing


  • Options
    #1313
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    green_screen wrote: »
    At which point, you repeated your question, I answered, you responded, we got to this point. Keep up :)

    avoiding the question by answering something else is not answering the question


  • Options
    #1314
    Calina
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    No you didn't, you tried to avoid answering it by telling us how the child was saved, not why

    Because of this statement in the legislation:
    9. (1) It shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended where—

    (a) subject to section 19 , three medical practitioners, having examined the pregnant woman, have jointly certified in good faith that—

    (i) there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life by way of suicide, and

    (ii) in their reasonable opinion (being an opinion formed in good faith which has regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable) that risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure,

    Source: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/en/act/pub/0035/print.html#part2-chap1


  • Options
    #1315
    Its Only Ray Parlour
    Registered Users Posts: 393 ✭✭Its Only Ray Parlour


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Do you really believe a child is equavalent to an animal ?
    Though some people do seem to care more for animals

    It's a foetus, not a child.

    I'm not an animal rights activist or anything, but if you knew anything about evolution, you would know we're all just organisms on this planet. I don't see any reason why human should be held in a much higher regard than animals.

    We humans are the most destructive species on this planet. Life on this planet would actually be better off without humans because we are destroying it for the other species by burning fossil fuels and destroying other species' habitats.

    I'm not talking about wiping out the human species altogether, but reducing the planet's human population to about 3 billion will help put an end to things like climate change.

    You need to look at the bigger picture and realize that aborting babies is nothing compared to destroying this planet.


  • Options
    #1316
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    Calina wrote: »
    Because of this statement in the legislation:



    So in other words the law protected human life, rather than cave into the demands to kill


  • Options
    #1317
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Sure just give them a poison pill, a much more civilised way to kill someone, that makes it ok
    So why was the child saved ?

    It's not a 'someone' at that stage of gestation it's the size of a jellybean and has no brain.

    The foetus was brought to the point of viability because someone decided that it had more rights than a grown, living, breathing woman who could clearly articulate that she did not want to carry and bear her rapist's child.

    And it could happen to me. It could happen to my nieces. It could happen to any woman of child bearing age in this country. If your sister or daughter was raped and became pregnant because of it would you honestly look her in the eyes and tell her that what's in her belly is more important to you than her mental health and her life?


  • Options
    #1318
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

    you would know we're all just organisms on this planet. I don't see any reason why human should be held in a much higher regard than animals.

    Hmmm, now where did I hear that before . . . .


  • Options
    #1319
    Ralphdejones
    Closed Accounts Posts: 581 ✭✭✭Ralphdejones


    kylith wrote: »
    It's not a 'someone' at that stage of gestation it's the size of a jellybean and has no brain.

    The foetus was brought to the point of viability because someone decided that it had more rights than a grown, living, breathing woman who could clearly articulate that she did not want to carry and bear her rapist's child.

    And it could happen to me. It could happen to my nieces. It could happen to any woman of child bearing age in this country. If your sister or daughter was raped and became pregnant because of it would you honestly look her in the eyes and tell her that what's in her belly is more important to you than her mental health and her life?

    If it's just a "jellybean with no brain", why kill it ?
    I don't think killing or blaming a child for the crimes of adults is any solution in a civilised world.
    Why should such innocent children continue to be deliberately stigmatised in society ?
    In who's interest is the perpetuation of this stigmatisation ?
    Two wrongs don't make a right.


  • Options
    #1320
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    It has to be dehumanised to gloss over the killing

    Or over sensationalized to play on emotions :rolleyes:
    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    Why should people crush childrens sculls and cut them up, because someone demands it ?
    But sure who cares about another human life, as long as someones demands are met.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1321
    Muise...
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,512 ✭✭✭Muise...


    Ralphdejones wrote: »
    So in other words the law protected human life, rather than cave into the demands to kill

    The law did not protect the human life of the woman in this case - it treated her as a troublesome vessel, to be deliberately left hanging in distress till her foetus was viable. This is disgusting.


Advertisement