woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

jam_mac_jam

padd b1975 wrote: »

Tell that to the child's father who may be wrongly accused.

She wouldn't be the first woman to make a false accusation.

completely irrelevant and pretty horrible comment. I would gladly say it to anyone, its completely irrelevant to this case, you are just trying to tarnish her.

Phoebas

Ralphdejones wrote: »

No, I'd just like a discussion where people are not just shouting past one another

And you thought you'd find it on an abortion thread. :eek:

What you need to so is start off on a public service thread, then on to Water Charges and Property Tax. After that you're ready for Israel-Palestine and then onto an IRA discussion.
Then, you're prepared for an abortion thread.

bumper234

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

completely irrelevant and pretty horrible comment. I would gladly say it to anyone, its completely irrelevant to this case, you are just trying to tarnish her.

Isn't that a tactic the pro-life side have always used?

bumper234

Phoebas wrote: »

And you thought you'd find it on an abortion thread. :eek:

What you need to so is start off on a public service thread, then on to Water Charges and Property Tax. After that you're ready for Israel-Palestine and then onto an IRA discussion.
Then, you're prepared for an abortion thread.

Don't forget the poppy/easter lily threads

Ralphdejones

Phoebas wrote: »

And you thought you'd find it on an abortion thread. :eek:

What you need to so is start off on a public service thread, then on to Water Charges and Property Tax. After that you're ready for Israel-Palestine and then onto an IRA discussion.
Then, you're prepared for an abortion thread.

Well if it's like that . . . .

takamichinoku

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Suffer for what ? Should the child suffer instead, or should neither suffer ?

I disagree entirely with you and I can even give your answer for you, no clue why you feel a need to step around it:
"On balance, the amount of suffering which the mother would endure would not match the absolute suffering of taking the life of an innocent child. Therefore the best compromise possible is to accept the woman's suffering so as to prevent the child's."


I mean, that's it, isn't it? Why on earth are you not able to say it directly?
...unless you think the mother shouldn't feel as if she's suffering by carrying a child which was conceived through rape.

Woodville56

Phoebas wrote: »

All you trying to get us all banned!

YES - Anyone who is abusive and using insulting language towards other posters should be banned !

Ralphdejones

takamichinoku wrote: »

I disagree entirely with you and I can even give your answer for you, no clue why you feel a need to step around it:
"On balance, the amount of suffering which the mother would endure would not match the absolute suffering of taking the life of an innocent child. Therefore the best compromise possible is to accept the woman's suffering so as to prevent the child's."

I mean, that's it, isn't it? Why on earth are you not able to say it directly?
...unless you think the mother shouldn't feel as if she's suffering by carrying a child which was conceived through rape.

I was not aware I'm supposed to answer everything they way you want me to. I think there should be the least amount of suffering for both.

shruikan2553

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Suffer for what ?

http://www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy/you-are-pregnant/pregnancy-complications.html

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Should the child suffer instead, or should neither suffer ?

As above, there are problems associated with pregnancy. Why should a woman risk them when they can be avoided?

Ralphdejones

shruikan2553 wrote: »

As above, there are problems associated with pregnancy. Why should a woman risk them when they can be avoided?

Beacause the child would now not be alive

takamichinoku

Ralphdejones wrote: »

I was not aware I'm supposed to answer everything they way you want me to. I think there should be the least amount of suffering for both.

You don't have to answer at all Ralph, "I think there should be the least amount of suffering for both" certainly isn't an answer.

I take it from that that you disagree with the answer I approximated from your responses? Feel free to elaborate why.

shruikan2553

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Beacause the child would now not be alive

So? Why should she suffer?

Ralphdejones

takamichinoku wrote: »

You don't have to answer at all Ralph, "I think there should be the least amount of suffering for both" certainly isn't an answer.

I take it from that that you disagree with the answer I approximated from your responses? Feel free to elaborate why.

If you want to make it all about me and keep putting your words in my mouth then its not possible to have any productive discussion. Both the child her mother are alive today, I don't see why one should be alive over the other, or why the child not living is a better outcome.

Ralphdejones

shruikan2553 wrote: »

So? Why should she suffer?

Is this the child or the mother your talking about ?

shruikan2553

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Is this the child or the mother your talking about ?

The pregnant woman. You know, that person you keep ignoring.

pwurple

takamichinoku wrote: »

pwurple: I clearly set myself in direct opposition to what you were advocating there. My opinions presumably completely contrast with yours, so yeah. Nothing to add beyond what I already said.

Direct opposition to any psychiatric or follow-up help for the woman? Why on earth???

I don't understand that kind of thought process at all. She clearly needs some kind if help instead of being tossed aside once the pregnancy is over. She needed it a long time ago it sounds like. She sounds like she was completly reeling. She first asked for an abortion from what sounded like fear/coercion. Then changed to rape claim, then to suicide risk. Increasing levels of despair and desperation it sounds like.

And as an aside, a c-section was almost surely the best/fastest way to end the pregnancy at that stage. Being induced or given an abortion pill would have taken days, if not weeks of agonising pain, including having to go through a full labour.

I honestly cannot understand people's callousness and shortsightedness though, in somehow thinking job done, hands washed, all better. She must still be in bits.

I know in Ireland there is a 9 month period of foster care for the child before being placed with adoptive parents, where the woman can change her mind. With some care and psychiatric help for herself, she may want that child back.

Ralphdejones

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The pregnant woman. You know, that person you keep ignoring.

I've continually refered to both, there are two lives involved, not one

Calina

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Both the child her mother are alive today, I don't see why one should be alive over the other, or why the child not living is a better outcome.

Well, I think there may be a choice between an outcome where both parties are alive but both have very serious health issues as a result, or one where one party survives with far fewer health issues - the pregnant woman who is already fully aware of her existence and feelings and the other is subject to an early term abortion and is completely unaware of its existence.

I find it hard to agree that a situation where two people are suffering health issues is better than a situation where one is significantly healthier and the other never lived in the first place.

takamichinoku

Ralphdejones wrote: »

If you want to make it all about me and keep putting your words in my mouth then its not possible to have any productive discussion. Both the child her mother are alive today, I don't see why one should be alive over the other, or why the child not living is a better outcome.

...and here's my translation of what you were actually saying with all your questions as answers

takamichinoku wrote: »

"On balance, the amount of suffering which the mother would endure would not match the absolute suffering of taking the life of an innocent child. Therefore the best compromise possible is to accept the woman's suffering so as to prevent the child's."

They are the exact same
If you're not willing to directly acknowledge that you feel the woman may need to suffer for the most morally justifiable outcome, you're not willing to engage in the topic on any real level.

...that being said, I'm not sure why I'm bothering.

Ralphdejones

Calina wrote: »

Well, I think there may be a choice between an outcome where both parties are alive but both have very serious health issues as a result, or one where one party survives with far fewer health issues - the pregnant woman who is already fully aware of her existence and feelings and the other is subject to an early term abortion and is completely unaware of its existence.

I find it hard to agree that a situation where two people are suffering health issues is better than a situation where one is significantly healthier and the other never lived in the first place.

I don't think killing the child is the solution to making the mother feel better, neither the mother or the child did anything wrong.

Ralphdejones

takamichinoku wrote: »

...and here's my translation of what you were actually saying with all your questions as answers


They are the exact same
If you're not willing to directly acknowledge that you feel the woman may need to suffer for the most morally justifiable outcome, you're not willing to engage in the topic on any real level.

...that being said, I'm not sure why I'm bothering.

I don't think pitting the child against the mother, or claiming that one must suffer more than the other is any solution to anything. Neither of them did anything wrong.

shruikan2553

Ralphdejones wrote: »

I've continually refered to both, there are two lives involved, not one

You keep saying that instead of answering the question.

takamichinoku

pwurple wrote: »

Direct opposition to any psychiatric or follow-up help for the woman? Why on earth???

Jesus, if I said that somewhere I misread and/or replied to something horrifically wrong :eek:

Sorry, dismiss whatever I said there (it's a lot easier than me trying to figure out whatever I meant to say). I'm a bit all over the place with this thread at point.

Ralphdejones

shruikan2553 wrote: »

You keep saying that instead of answering the question.

What question ? I don't recall not answering any from you.

Mountainsandh

Just thinking aloud here, somebody may have the answer to that : car crash at 26 weeks pregnancy, if doctors have to choose (medical situation where either mother or foetus is going to die, 50/50) who do they save ? by law in Ireland ?

shruikan2553

Ralphdejones wrote: »

What question ? I don't recall not answering any from you.

This one.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

So? Why should she suffer?

Calina

Ralphdejones wrote: »

I don't think pitting the child against the mother, or claiming that one must suffer more than the other is any solution to anything. Neither of them did anything wrong.

However, that is exactly what you are doing. In a bid to be fair to both, you are being fair to neither. I'd also add that it is still rather crazy to consider an 8 week zygote to be equally alive to someone who has actually completed 9 months of pregnancy and been born.

Ralphdejones

shruikan2553 wrote: »

This one.

I've already answered that from another poster. There are two lives and patients involved not one, both their suffering should be kept to a minimum, neither of them did anything wrong, the child should not be forced to suffer more than the mother, the rapist should be the one that is suffering. Not an innocent child or its mother. Now perhaps you'll answer why the child should suffer ?

Ralphdejones

Calina wrote: »

However, that is exactly what you are doing. In a bid to be fair to both, you are being fair to neither. I'd also add that it is still rather crazy to consider an 8 week zygote to be equally alive to someone who has actually completed 9 months of pregnancy and been born.

Thankfully in this case the child and the mother are both alive, rather than claiming it must be one over the other.

Czarcasm

Ralphdejones wrote: »

If you want to make it all about me and keep putting your words in my mouth then its not possible to have any productive discussion. Both the child her mother are alive today, I don't see why one should be alive over the other, or why the child not living is a better outcome.

Ralph, merely existing is not an indicator of quality of life. That's what you consistently seem to be missing here. If an unborn child is unwanted by the woman carrying it, that has an immediate negative effect on the person's quality of life, before they are even born, let alone as they mature and grow into adulthood, and that's working off the idea that the person will at least be physically healthy having been carried to full term, despite the woman's wish that she had not wanted to give birth.

Now, the negative consequences for the woman who was forced to give birth against her will, and with regards to her quality of life after the fact...

I don't even know where to start tbh.


I think everyone here would prefer if abortion were never necessary, and that nobody should be forced to suffer unnecessarily, but the sad, unfortunate, fact of the matter is that abortion is a necessity in circumstances where it can be used to cause as little pain and suffering to human beings as possible, and treat both the woman and the unborn child with compassion, dignity and respect, to end the life of the unborn child in as humanely a manner as possible, without causing undue suffering to either the woman or the unborn child.

It's unfortunately the best we've got, until medical science comes up with a way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and therefore by extension unwanted abortions, because despite sensationalist "free for all" nonsense about abortion, there aren't too many women willing would put themselves through the various procedures if they really didn't have to, if they thought they really had a choice.