woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

bumper234

Ralphdejones wrote: »

No I don't see why her or the child should be made to suffer an abortion.
Neiher of them did anything wrong.

She wasn't forced to suffer an abortion, She was made to suffer an invasive operation and a forced birth.

Ralphdejones

lazygal wrote: »

So your solution to women with unwanted pregnancies is…….to remain pregnant?

So your solution to unwanted pregnacies is . . . to kill the child ?

shruikan2553

Ralphdejones wrote: »

No I don't see why her or the child should be made to suffer an abortion.
Neiher of them did anything wrong.

Do you know the effects of pregnancy on a person?

I recommend looking them up so you can attempt to come up with a reason why someone should go through with it against their will.

bumper234

Ralphdejones wrote: »

So your solution to unwanted pregnacies is . . . to kill the child ?

It's not a child :rolleyes:

Ralphdejones

Phoebas wrote: »

There are competing rights at play here - someone has to lose out.
The only question is where to strike a balance, but you seem not to see that any balance needs to be struck.

That's incorrect, so how do you propose to balance the rights of the child with the rights of the woman ? Should the child be alive or dead now ?

Phoebas

eviltwin wrote: »

There are a lot of women and men out there who do find abortion a solution, adoption is great if you don't want a child, not so much if you don't want to remain pregnant.

True enough - but sometimes you don't get to have your preferred choice and you have to accept a compromise.
In most jurisdictions you just wouldn't have a choice of a late stage abortion.

eviltwin

Ralphdejones wrote: »

So your solution to unwanted pregnacies is . . . to kill the child ?

Yes

lazygal

Ralphdejones wrote: »

So your solution to unwanted pregnacies is . . . to kill the child ?

No, its to terminate the pregnancy at as early a stage as possible to avoid any invasive procedures.

Ralphdejones

eviltwin wrote: »

Yes

Honest answer, but I don't agree that it's an ethical solution to kill one person to facilitate another.

lazygal

Ralphdejones wrote: »

That's incorrect, so how do you propose to balance the rights of the child with the rights of the woman ? Should the child be alive or dead now ?

What's your point? The child is alive. I would balance the rights of the born woman by allowing her to terminate the pregnancy/kill the unborn baby at as early a stage as possible.

lazygal

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Honest answer, but I don't agree that it's an ethical solution to kill one person to facilitate another.

If you don't give me a kidney so I can stay alive, are you killing me?

Ralphdejones

lazygal wrote: »

What's your point? The child is alive. I would balance the rights of the born woman by allowing her to terminate the pregnancy/kill the unborn baby at as early a stage as possible.

In other words, the child would now be dead if it was up to you

pablomakaveli

green_screen wrote: »

Mad isn't it, how the two posters that are the most prolific in damning people who support abortion, are men, who will never have to go through pregnancy.

In my experience the ones who are the most for it are also the ones who will never be affected by these situations. It's easy for them to sit up in their ivory towers and judge everyone else.

lazygal

Ralphdejones wrote: »

In other words, the child would now be dead if it was up to you

If it was up to me a woman pregnant who doesn't wish to be, whatever the circumstances of conception, she would have the choice to terminate the pregnancy at as early a stage as possible, if that is the right choice for her to make. If she wants to remain pregnant and she chooses that freely, I support that too.

Phoebas

Ralphdejones wrote: »

That's incorrect, so how do you propose to balance the rights of the child with the rights of the woman ? Should the child be alive or dead now ?

You seem to take an absolutist position where the rights of the unborn child to life always trump the rights of the mother seeking an abortion.
Its fine for you to hold that position, but its also pointless for me to enter an argument that has no prospect of going anywhere.

In most jurisdictions a balance has been struck that is accepted by everyone but those on the fringes. That's arguably not the case yet in Ireland.

Ralphdejones

Phoebas wrote: »

You seem to take an absolutist position where the rights of the unborn child to life always trump the rights of the mother seeking an abortion.
Its fine for you to hold that position, but its also pointless for me to enter an argument that has no prospect of going anywhere.

In most jurisdictions a balance has been struck that is accepted by everyone but those on the fringes. That's arguably not the case yet in Ireland.

All human beings should have an equal right to life, not superior rights to life, where one life, either the mother or the childs, "trumps" the other life as you put it.
Both the mother and the child are alive today. That's as balanced as you are going to get.

Calina

Ralphdejones wrote: »

In other words, the child would now be dead if it was up to you

No.

The child would never have been born.

eviltwin

Ralphdejones wrote: »

All human beings should have an equal right to life, not superior rights to life, where one life, either the mother or the childs, "trumps" the other life as you put it.
Both the mother and the child are alive today. That's as balanced as you are going to get.

If the only balance means the child has to be born its not very balanced is it? the woman should always come first. It's very insulting that as a woman, as a member of society, a parent, a spouse, worker, tax payer that my value is the same as an embryo and that my personal choices can be vetoed by a panel of so called experts. It makes me feel like I really have very little value at all.

Morag

In a more humane country she would have been given the abortion pills at 8 weeks when she first discovered she was pregnant and told a dr she didn't' want to be.

Ralphdejones

Morag wrote: »

In a more humane country she would have been given the abortion pills at 8 weeks when she first discovered she was pregnant and told a dr she didn't' want to be.

Not very humane for the life of the child though, who also did nothing wrong.

Phoebas

Ralphdejones wrote: »

All human beings should have an equal right to life, not superior rights to life, where one life, either the mother or the childs, "trumps" the other life as you put it.
Both the mother and the child are alive today.

If, in vindicating the right to life of the unborn child you compel the woman to provide sustenance to that unborn child, the right to life of the unborn child is 'trumping' the right of the woman to refuse that sustenance.

Most countries have come to the compromise that the unborn child has less rights earlier in the pregnancy (where the rights of the mother 'trump' those of the unborn child) until later in the pregnancy (around viability) at which point the right to life of the unborn child 'trumps' those of the mother.

Its a messy compromise, but no absolutist position is sustainable.

Ralphdejones

Phoebas wrote: »

If, in vindicating the right to life of the unborn child you compel the woman to provide sustenance to that unborn child, the right to life of the unborn child is 'trumping' the right of the woman to refuse that sustenance.

Most countries have come to the compromise that the unborn child has less rights earlier in the pregnancy (where the rights of the mother 'trump' those of the unborn child) until later in the pregnancy (around viability) at which point the right to life of the unborn child 'trumps' those of the mother.

Its a messy compromise, but no absolutist position is sustainable.

A dead child is pretty absolutist. Both of them are alive today. That's as balanced as it can be.

eviltwin

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Not very humane for the life of the child though, who also did nothing wrong.

That is just how it is. The woman has to be paramount. If you are so concerned with unborn 'children' dying why don't you demand that there is money put into the prevention of miscarriage by our government, why is no one out screaming for that seeing as so many 'children' die in utero. Mother nature is the most prolific abortionist there is.

TheGoldenAges

I find these threads rather pointless as at the moment in the key voting demographics the population tend to be more conservative leaning due to the churches teachings infused with them as they were growing up meaning a referendum on abortion is unlikely to pass. Give it 10/20 years and the more liberal leaning younger demographic would have transitioned to another demographic with a larger voting influence. Happened with divorce, will happen with gay marriage next year (if the supposed referendum goes ahead), will happen for abortion and hell even cannabis soon enough.

Phoebas

Ralphdejones wrote: »

A dead child is pretty absolutist.

That's a bit of a meaningless remark that doesn't address the problem of the balance of rights at all.

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Both of them are alive today. That's as balanced as it can be.

In this case we were at the edge of viability so it was always going to be a mess. I think they did the right thing - according to the current law - but I don't think anyone could be happy with this situation where dangerously premature children are unnecessarily delivered by c-section with all of the risks that brings with it.

In most other jurisdictions the woman would have been granted an abortion when she first presented at eight weeks.

Morag

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Not very humane for the life of the child though, who also did nothing wrong.

At 8 weeks of pregnancy which is 6 weeks of embryo development, there is no child.

Akrasia

Ralphdejones wrote: »

That's incorrect, so how do you propose to balance the rights of the child with the rights of the woman ? Should the child be alive or dead now ?

A foetus before 25 weeks does not have a working brain. It is not a person. At best it is a potential person, but potential persons do not have human rights, neither do expired persons (people who have died)

The Mother has human rights because she is a sentient person who is capable of suffering harm. A foetus can not suffer pain, it can not lose anything that it never had in the first place.

If you say a foetus is a human child, what exact point in gestation does the individual human child exist?


(note, it couldn't be at the point of conception because up until about 13 days after conception there is still the possibility that the zygote will split into twins)

Godge

Ralphdejones wrote: »

All human beings should have an equal right to life, .

On what do you base this assertion? Are you saying that this is true in all circumstances? Do you live in an ideal world or the real one?

Ralphdejones wrote: »

not superior rights to life, where one life, either the mother or the childs, "trumps" the other life as you put it.
Both the mother and the child are alive today. That's as balanced as you are going to get.

From access to medical treatment to conscription for military duty to access to fresh water, there are compromises all across the world every day to the statement that there is an equal right to life.

Godge

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Not very humane for the life of the child though, who also did nothing wrong.

If I follow your logic to the end, it means that all women be admitted to hospital immediately on becoming pregnant to ensure that they are monitored and controlled 24/7 to ensure that they don't do anything - drink alcohol, fall off ladders or down stairs etc. that might endanger the life of the child.

Like all abolutist arguments, it ultimately fails because there is no black or white situation.

What is the difference between a woman smoking during pregnancy and endangering the life of her unborn child and having an abortion? By your logic, there should be a law against smoking and drinking alcohol and engaging in dangerous pursuits while pregnant.

If a man knocks a pregnant female pedestrian down with his car and she loses the baby, should he be charged with manslaughter? He would, if the woman died, so why, if they have an equal right to life, is he not charged with manslaughter if the unborn child dies?

I could go on and on but there are huge gaps in your logic.

Phoebas

The banner ad this page is serving me is for free Giraffe childcare places for VEC students.
Very proactive.