woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

RobertKK

lazygal wrote: »

Which do you rescue from a burning hospital, a Petri dish of embryos or a newborn baby?

That didn't answer my question.

You like asking questions but not answering.

I suspect the embryos are locked away in a freezer and if you take them out of the freezer for too long a period into the heat of a burning building you would kill them, so they would be safer locked away while the babies who are out in the possible heat are taking away.
As long as electricity is working the embryos would be fine.

Ralphdejones

eeepaulo wrote: »

People who scream child while frothing at the mouth

My point stands, people like you would be the ones branding her

Stigmatizing is branding someone

The only one's I've seen screaming or frothing at the mouth about this decision are the ones that would have prefered if the child was now dead. I don't believe in branding the mother or the child for a rape. Neither of them have done anything wrong.

You've still failed to substantiate what "people like me" are.

lazygal

RobertKK wrote: »

That didn't answer my question.

You like asking questions but not answering.

I suspect the embryos are locked away in a freezer and if you take them out of the freezer for too long a period into the heat of a burning building you would kill them, so they would be safer locked away while the babies who are out in the possible heat are taking away.
As long as electricity is working the embryos would be fine.

You didn't answer some questions yesterday. Is termination of an unviable foetus which has no brain acceptable? Or are you going to toss around some "miracle" baby that defied all medical research?

RobertKK

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Your understanding of post natal depression is appalling.

That was not given as an understanding, it was putting the logic of a pregnant woman with a woman who just gave birth and killing the life as a treatment.

RobertKK

lazygal wrote: »

You didn't answer some questions yesterday. Is termination of an unviable foetus which has no brain acceptable? Or are you going to toss around some "miracle" baby that defied all medical research?

I was getting questioned yesterday as if I was some terrorist with information on a terrorist attack.

That is a poor excuse for not answering by the way, as I replied loads to dozens of questions, yet you can't answer one.

lazygal

RobertKK wrote: »

That was not given as an understanding, it was putting the logic of a pregnant woman with a woman who just gave birth and killing the life as a treatment.

Do you think infanticide should remain a defense to a charge of murder where a mother kills a child under 12 months of age?

Muise...

RobertKK wrote: »

That was not given as an understanding, it was putting the logic of a pregnant woman with a woman who just gave birth and killing the life as a treatment.

While completely ignoring the fact of life that the foetus is dependent on the woman and a newborn is not, and that post-natal depression is not the same as an unwanted pregnancy. That's not logic; it's a retarded syllogism.

Morag

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/18/pregnant-suicidal-victim-ireland-abortion-law

the woman is only 18.

ProfessorPlum

Muise... wrote: »

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.

Again, there is no evidence that this is the case. Emotional hyperbole does not help the argument.

bumper234

Morag wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/18/pregnant-suicidal-victim-ireland-abortion-law

the woman is only 18.

Now

The unnamed woman, now 18, was reportedly raped as a minor and sought an abortion just eight weeks into her pregnancy. Even after experts found her to be suicidal

Kiwi in IE

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Well I don't think trying to stigmatise your daughter or the baby is the solution to anything.
And I don't think killing a child is any solution to a rape.

If my daughter was raped, pregnant and wanted an abortion, so I assisted her to get one, please explain how I would be stigmatising her?

As for stigmatising 'the baby', how does one stigmatise something that dosn't yet exist?

padd b1975

Morag wrote: »

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/18/pregnant-suicidal-victim-ireland-abortion-law

the woman is only 18.

An adult.

eeepaulo

Ralphdejones wrote: »

The only one's I've seen screaming or frothing at the mouth about this decision are the ones that would have prefered if the child was now dead. I don't believe in branding the mother or the child for a rape. Neither of them have done anything wrong.

You've still failed to substantiate what "people like me" are.

By people like you i mean people who post stuff like...

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.


It has to be dehumanised to gloss over the killing


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


A defenceless child, that has done nothing wrong, also has rights


When should they have killed the child ?

Just come and and scream child murderer

During these rants, and that is exactly what they are rants, xalot posted the following balanced (ignored) post.....

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.


Dont let anything interrupt your chanting

Ralphdejones

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

If my daughter was raped, pregnant and wanted an abortion, so I assisted her to get one, please explain how I would be stigmatising her?

As for stigmatising 'the baby', how does one stigmatise something that dosn't yet exist?

If she has done nothing wrong and nothing exists as you claim, why would you want her to get an abortion ?

lazygal

padd b1975 wrote: »

An adult.

She may have been a child when she was raped and forced to remain pregnant. Like ms x who was 14 when the state took her to court to force her to remain pregnant after she was raped.

Muise...

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Again, there is no evidence that this is the case. Emotional hyperbole does not help the argument.

So they just strung the case out because they had no idea that pregnancy is a developing condition and they thought prompt consideration was unnecessary?

StudentDad

If this case has done anything it has highlighted the bald fact that if a woman finds herself in need of an abortion. She must not rely on Irish State Services.

SD

Czarcasm

efb wrote: »

I would agree with Conor here. All were in agreement the pregnancy should be terminated- as the baby was viable it was c sectioned in accordance with the guidelines

efb wrote: »

I don't think the psychs recommended an abortion, only the termination of the pregnancy- which occurred

efb, conor has so far misinterpreted the Irish Constitution, ignored the opinions of psychiatrists with 20 years experience, ignored the opinion of the UN, and now reinterpreted Ms. Enright's opinion to suit his own argument. He's trying to play legal eagle with the wings of a sparrow. It's right there in black and white -

The termination was refused by an expert panel.

It was refused even though the consultant psychiatrists on the three-person panel believed that an abortion was justified on suicide grounds, notwithstanding the advanced gestation.

The will of a suicidal pregnant woman was taken into account by the two consultant psychiatrists, but ignored by the obstetrician, who also disagreed with the two consultant psychiatrists, and deemed the woman continue with her pregnancy. If the timeline reported in the media is correct, this woman could have had an abortion at 20 weeks, so I find it bizarre that the obstetrician would say at that point the woman in question should continue her pregnancy, and then four to six weeks later have her endure a cesarean section before she was compelled by the High Court to do so.

The EHCR would have a field day with this if it goes in front of them as in this case both the obstetrician and the HSE trampled all over this woman's human rights and her most basic human right to bodily integrity.

I also find it bizarre the idea of separate legal representation for the unborn child. This woman had the whole deck stacked against her in terms of the medical and legal might of the HSE who have now taken the child into their care after having been delivered prematurely between 24 and 26 weeks by cesarean section.

The whole situation, it's monstrous what they put this woman through in order to deliver a barely viable baby who the obstetrician would have known would be putting the unborn child at risk of having numerous health issues, not to mention the mental and physical health issues of the woman a result of one person being able to call the shots. There was no need for the consultant psychiatrists if all they wanted was a determination on the viability of the unborn child.

bumper234

padd b1975 wrote: »

An adult.

Read the article

The unnamed woman, now 18, was reportedly raped as a minor and sought an abortion just eight weeks into her pregnancy.

RobertKK

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think infanticide should remain a defense to a charge of murder where a mother kills a child under 12 months of age?

Again you ask a question and fail to answer one when asked yourself, we can all play this game.

Is the treatment for a person jumping from a 40th floor of a building due to large debts the following:
A: You treat the problem by paying off the large debts for that person, so you are removing the problem.
B: You get the person the mental healthcare they need.

Given all we hear is you treat a pregnant woman with an abortion to remove the problem if the unborn is the problem.

Ralphdejones

eeepaulo wrote: »

By people like you i mean people who post stuff like...



Just come and and scream child murderer

During these rants, and that is exactly what they are rants, xalot posted the following balanced (ignored) post.....

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.

Dont let anything interrupt your chanting

No one is screaming or ranting, other than some of the people who wish the child was now dead. I'm not in the slightest bit religious, so I'm afraid your attempted slurs have failed.
Maybe you should get back to attacking the posts, rather than trying to resort to attacking the poster, or making unsubstantiated claims about anyone who is not pro abortion in this case.

kylith

Ralphdejones wrote: »

If it's just a "jellybean with no brain", why kill it ?

Because it won't always be. It'll grow and she'll face all the disorders of pregnancy such as pre-eclampsia, hypertension, hyperthyroidism, high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, incontinence, and all the time having complete strangers coming up in the street and telling her how happy she must be, how much she must be looking forward to the birth. And that's before the agonising and potentially life threatening ordeal that is childbirth itself.

And all the time, every day when she sees the growing bump she sees the face of the man who beat her and held her down and violated her, possibly several times over, possibly many men, possibly for days. And she sees people like you talking about how she's a murderer to want it gone, to want it to be like it never happened, so she can try to forget about it and start a new life.

Ralphdejones wrote: »

I don't think killing or blaming a child for the crimes of adults is any solution in a civilised world.

And I don't think that forcing a human woman to live for months on end with a constant reminder of the violence and violation that was inflicted on her is any solution. Ending the pregnancy as soon as possible is, in my opinion, the only civilised, merciful, and kind thing to do for the only person who is currently effected by it - the woman.

Ralphdejones wrote: »

I'd say why, what did the child do, and why do you think killing an innocent child will make you feel better ? Why should the child or you be stigmatised ? Neither of you did anything wrong.

Wow. So, she's dealing with the shame and disgust of being raped, the portrayal in this country of women who have been raped as somehow 'asking for it' because of the way she was dressed, or where she went, or how she acted, and you're going to call her a killer on top of that? This is something a woman has to live with for the rest of her life and you'd inflict 9 months of vomiting, health problems, and pain on her?

I hate to be all 'if you're not a woman you can't know', but it seems like you can't even begin to imagine yourself it the position of a woman who has been sexually assaulted.

RobertKK

Muise... wrote: »

While completely ignoring the fact of life that the foetus is dependent on the woman and a newborn is not, and that post-natal depression is not the same as an unwanted pregnancy. That's not logic; it's a retarded syllogism.

Really, so infanticide doesn't exist?

A mother never killed her own children?

Afterall killing the unborn is a treatment for a mental health problem if we are to believe some.

eeepaulo

Ralphdejones wrote: »

No one is screaming or ranting, other than some of the people who wish the child was now dead. I'm not in the slightest bit religious, so I'm afraid your attempted slurs have failed.
Maybe you should get back to attacking the posts, rather than trying to resort to attacking the poster, or making unsubstantiated claims about anyone who is not pro abortion in this case.

Oh no im stigmatised.

Can you say child and killed again please, it is such a good argument

Muise...

RobertKK wrote: »

Really, so infanticide doesn't exist?

A mother never killed her own children?

Afterall killing the unborn is a treatment for a mental health problem if we are to believe some.

You're talking gibberish.

Ralphdejones

kylith wrote: »

And all the time, every day when she sees the growing bump she sees the face of the man who beat her and held her down and violated her, possibly several times over, possibly many men, possibly for days. And she sees people like you talking about how she's a murderer to want it gone, to want it to be like it never happened, so she can try to forget about it and start a new life.

And I don't think that forcing a human woman to live for months on end with a constant reminder of the violence and violation that was inflicted on her is any solution. Ending the pregnancy as soon as possible is, in my opinion, the only civilised, merciful, and kind thing to do for the only person who is currently effected by it - the woman.

Wow. So, she's dealing with the shame and disgust of being raped, the portrayal in this country of women who have been raped as somehow 'asking for it' because of the way she was dressed, or where she went, or how she acted, and you're going to call her a killer on top of that? This is something a woman has to live with for the rest of her life and you'd inflict 9 months of vomiting, health problems, and pain on her?

I hate to be all 'if you're not a woman you can't know', but it seems like you can't even begin to imagine yourself it the position of a woman who has been sexually assaulted.

Again your back to trying to blame and stigmatise her and the child and perpetuate this, when neither of them did anything wrong.

RobertKK

Muise... wrote: »

You're talking gibberish.

You lack a decent reply.

bumper234

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Again your back to trying to blame and stigmatise her and the child and perpetuate this, when neither of them did anything wrong.

"The shame and disgust of being raped"

This is how the woman will feel not how society will see her so there is no "Stigmatizing" of her.

_Whimsical_

I feel terribly sorry for the woman in this case however the tragedy this baby has faced is being lost in this discussion and was the affect on babies of this legislation was largely ignore except by pro-life campaigners during the debates on this legislation last year.

I really wonder how potential severe and expensive disability will influence this babies chance of being adopted. The mothers problems were horrific but they could be overcome,I know they leave scars for a lifetime, but she will have the chance of going on and living her life afterwards, maybe getting married and having children. This baby faces a life of extreme difficultly without the support of loving parents, it's possible he/she will never be able to leave this time behind.

If the worst happens what will we say in 20 years time when might see this young person on the tv or in the papers telling his/her story of how our state legislation allowed for him to be disabled through early birth and born to a life of suffering?

This is in the independent from the Master of the Rotunda today.

Master of the Rotunda Hospital, Sam Coulter Smith said the baby will face ‘enormous’ health challenges.

“I think the challenges are enormous. A baby born at 24 or 25 weeks is going to spend a long period of time in neonatal intensive care”, he told Sean O’Rourke on Radio One this morning.

“That’s a huge cost to the health service, probably in the order of €60-90k,.

“The baby will probably stay for 15 or 16 weeks in intensive care.

“Most of these babies will survive, 80-90pc of them will survive. - but only 20 -30 pc will have intact survival.”

He added that many of the babies will grow up with significant health problems.

“You’ve not only got the cost of care in the acute stage, but you’ve got the long term issues which can arrive.

“They can be mild learning difficulties to physical issues to cerebral palsy to death – there’s long term respiratory morbidity as well. There are very significant issues to survival of babies at this gestation.”
- See more at: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/baby-at-centre-of-latest-abortion-case-has-2030pc-chance-of-normal-life-30515904.html#sthash.lWM9IdQY.dpuf

lazygal

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I feel terribly sorry for the woman in this case however the tragedy this baby has faced is being lost in this discussion and was the affect on babies of this legislation was largely ignore except by pro-life campaigners during the debates on this legislation last year.

I really wonder how potential severe and expensive disability will influence this babies chance of being adopted. The mothers problems were horrific but they could be overcome,I know they leave scars for a lifetime, but she will have the chance of going on and living her life afterwards, maybe getting married and having children. This baby faces a life of extreme difficultly without the support of loving parents, it's possible he/she will never be able to leave this time behind.

If the worst happens what will we say in 20 years time when might see this young person on the tv or in the papers telling his/her story of how our state legislation allowed for him to be disabled through early birth and born to a life of suffering?

This is in the independent from the Master of the Rotunda today.

This could have been avoided if like most countries the pregnancy could have been terminated before 12 weeks rather than dragging it out and effectively forcing her to have a c section which has long term effects on future pregnancies.