woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

Akrasia

mrsbyrne wrote: »

So you can't wish your mother had never been raped without remaining gladvto he alive? Your frustration and anger that this child wasn't aborted is causing you to become increasingly confused. Both mother and child are alive. Maybe neither are in good health but while there's life there's hope, no?

You're missing the point.

You're trying to say that a baby being born as the result of a rape is an argument against abortion because when that baby is older, he/she will be glad to be alive and not have been aborted.

In fact the logic also applies to the act of the rape. It's equally an argument in favour of rape as it is against abortion. 'The end justifies the means'. Imagine your the daughter of a mother who was raped by her father and some day your grandmother says to you:

'I knew your grandfather was raping your mother every day and I did nothing to stop him, but it's a good thing I didn't because If I did, you would never have been born'

Akrasia

NuMarvel wrote: »

Thanks for the invite, we'll be round later. Save us some cake

I want the coke!

geret

Men should ‘know their place’ in abortion debate, rally told

- See more at: http: //www. independent.ie/irish-news/health/video-men-should-know-their-place-in-abortion-debate-rally-told-30526016.html#sthash.Wvz7B54r.dpuf

Ralphdejones

geret wrote: »

Men should ‘know their place’ in abortion debate, rally told

- See more at: http: //www. independent.ie/irish-news/health/video-men-should-know-their-place-in-abortion-debate-rally-told-30526016.html#sthash.Wvz7B54r.dpuf

The new spokesperson is called Amanda, she had a big mask slip yesterday

Godge

mrsbyrne wrote: »

Nope right back at ya there. You actually looked for an article found it and didn't read it. On st least 2 conditions this child will he an Irish citizen. Go back and this time read the page without looking for an anomaly which you thinks proves your point.

Only if stateless, not known at this stage.

Ralphdejones

xalot wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, in this case a foetus should have been aborted when the raped and suicidal teenager requested it at 8 weeks, as is legally acceptable. End of.

In other words you'd be happier if the child was now not alive and had been aborted.
What makes you think that's a better outcome than them being alive now ?

Sarky

Ralphdejones wrote: »

The new spokesperson is called Amanda, she had a big mask slip yesterday

She makes quite a bit of sense.

Women are the ones this affects most, so they should be the driving force behind change. Men can lend all the support they want, and that's great and she appreciates it, just don't go around speaking over or for the women involved.

It appears that you haven't actually listened to what she was saying. You're the very type of person she was talking about.

Gatica

Have followed this thread for a while.

Some arguments on this thread have been astounding, such as "are you saying kill the child?", "aborting the child wouldn't have helped the traumatised woman"...
I doubt anyone here is saying let's go in there and slit the throat of the baby cos he should've been dead. Ridiculous.
Aborting the embryo of her attacker may not have suddenly made that young woman's life all rosy, but she could've started to move on from that experience and tried to forget what had happened to her (though therapists I'm sure encourage coming to terms as part of healing process, etc...).
Now, as she says in her own words, because of the C-section “the scar will never go away”, “it will always be a reminder”. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/they-said-they-could-not-do-an-abortion-i-said-you-can-leave-me-now-to-die-i-don-t-want-to-live-in-this-world-anymore-1.1901258?page=3
Now I know someone's gonna comeback and say that at 24 weeks it would've still required surgery - we're not talking about a 24 week pregnancy, we're talking at 8 weeks, which is when she first requested an abortion.

If the new law worked as it should, she would've had the termination (by whatever means) at 24 weeks when they deemed her suicidal. I doubt the obs doc disagreed with her suicide ideations (my opinion) just that in their opinion the baby was viable and could be delivered more safely if they waited a week. This week's wait in my opinion was against the current constitution. She was treated as an incubator and administered steroids.

In certain respects it is unfortunate that the C-section was after her agreement, as I believe that now weakens her position legally. In my opinion she was given no other choice and so acceded, but now if her council were to try and sue, the defendants' counter-argument would be that she submitted to it voluntarily.

Ralphdejones

Sarky wrote: »

It appears that you haven't actually listened to what she was saying. You're the very type of person she was talking about.

If you had listened to her speech, you would realise she was talking about men who supported abortion. You better get back to Amanda to confirm your place.

bumper234

Ralphdejones wrote: »

If you had listened to her speech, you would realise she was talking about men who supported abortion. You better get back to Amanda to confirm your place.

It's nice that you learned some new words this week, Boring but nice

Mountainsandh

. But the child cannot be fully hidden. This is the same person now as when delivered at 25 weeks and before that again. This is a baby, not a “rapist’s baby”, and is entitled to our respect and protection as much as anyone else. That is what fundamental human equality means.

That's the fundamental weakness in her argument the author fails to address, underneath the layer of drama and the mournful fiddle soundtrack that is the whole article.

What is now a baby was still a very primitive foetus between week 9 and week 17, when action could have been taken should the woman have had a choice.
It would not have been aware (of anything : surroundings, sounds, who or what it is), and would have been a potential, a possible being, rather than an actual person.

Sarky

Ralphdejones wrote: »

If you had listened to her speech, you would realise she was talking about men who supported abortion. You better get back to Amanda to confirm your place.

You're still doing it.

Kidchameleon

Mountainsandh wrote: »

What is now a baby was still a very primitive foetus between week 9 and week 17, when action could have been taken should the woman have had a choice.
It would not have been aware (of anything : surroundings, sounds, who or what it is), and would have been a potential, a possible being, rather than an actual person.

do we have hard evidence that humans at an early stage of development are not aware?

Godge

Ralphdejones wrote: »

In other words you'd be happier if the child was now not alive and had been aborted.
What makes you think that's a better outcome than them being alive now ?

Can I take it that you mean that if a woman deliberately does something at 8 weeks pregnant that leads to the fetus being killed, that this is wrong as the baby would not be alive when born? That is the logic behind what you are saying.

Therefore if a woman is not allowed ingest a pill at 8 weeks pregnant to kill a fetus, why are there no laws forbidding pregnant woman to travel abroad in case they have an abortion? Why are there no laws forbidding them to go skiing, climbing mountains or other dangerous pursuits? Why are there no laws forbidding them to smoke or drink alcohol of ingest other unhealthy foods? Why aren't they put into hospital care from the moment of pregnancy to ensure they don't damage or kill the fetus?

You see it is quite simple. If you believe in a woman's right to choose what to do with their own body, you allow for abortion and for women to choose whether to have one or not. If you believe in the equal right to life of a fetus, then you must ensure that that equal life is protected fully as I have outlined above, if you don't you are a hypocrite.

Ralphdejones

Godge wrote: »

Can I take it that you mean that if a woman deliberately does something at 8 weeks pregnant that leads to the fetus being killed, that this is wrong as the baby would not be alive when born? That is the logic behind what you are saying.

Therefore if a woman is not allowed ingest a pill at 8 weeks pregnant to kill a fetus, why are there no laws forbidding pregnant woman to travel abroad in case they have an abortion? Why are there no laws forbidding them to go skiing, climbing mountains or other dangerous pursuits? Why are there no laws forbidding them to smoke or drink alcohol of ingest other unhealthy foods? Why aren't they put into hospital care from the moment of pregnancy to ensure they don't damage or kill the fetus?

You see it is quite simple. If you believe in a woman's right to choose what to do with their own body, you allow for abortion and for women to choose whether to have one or not. If you believe in the equal right to life of a fetus, then you must ensure that that equal life is protected fully as I have outlined above, if you don't you are a hypocrite.

You can do all sorts of things abroad to children that are not legal here, you can't stop people going abroad to do them.

Godge

Gatica wrote: »

Have followed this thread for a while.

Some arguments on this thread have been astounding, such as "are you saying kill the child?", "aborting the child wouldn't have helped the traumatised woman"...
I doubt anyone here is saying let's go in there and slit the throat of the baby cos he should've been dead. Ridiculous.
Aborting the embryo of her attacker may not have suddenly made that young woman's life all rosy, but she could've started to move on from that experience and tried to forget what had happened to her (though therapists I'm sure encourage coming to terms as part of healing process, etc...).
Now, as she says in her own words, because of the C-section “the scar will never go away”, “it will always be a reminder”. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/they-said-they-could-not-do-an-abortion-i-said-you-can-leave-me-now-to-die-i-don-t-want-to-live-in-this-world-anymore-1.1901258?page=3
Now I know someone's gonna comeback and say that at 24 weeks it would've still required surgery - we're not talking about a 24 week pregnancy, we're talking at 8 weeks, which is when she first requested an abortion.

If the new law worked as it should, she would've had the termination (by whatever means) at 24 weeks when they deemed her suicidal. I doubt the obs doc disagreed with her suicide ideations (my opinion) just that in their opinion the baby was viable and could be delivered more safely if they waited a week. This week's wait in my opinion was against the current constitution. She was treated as an incubator and administered steroids.

In certain respects it is unfortunate that the C-section was after her agreement, as I believe that now weakens her position legally. In my opinion she was given no other choice and so acceded, but now if her council were to try and sue, the defendants' counter-argument would be that she submitted to it voluntarily.

I think the legal decision would rest on whether informed consent was freely given without duress by her. Given her expressed wishes over a few months, and the way she was treated, she would have a very strong case. I expect she will get a large settlement from the State for the treatment she was subjected to.

Ralphdejones

bumper234 wrote: »

It's nice that you learned some new words this week, Boring but nice

When are you putting her on TV so everyone can learn more ?

Godge

Ralphdejones wrote: »

You can do all sorts of things abroad to children that are not legal here, you can't stop people going abroad to do them.

I know, answer straight from the pro-life website.

However, you are wrong, very wrong and her is why. While you can go abroad and do things to children abroad, you cannot bring children abroad (including your own children) to do things to them.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2008/en/act/pub/0008/sec0002.html

Section 2 (1)

"A person who trafficks a child for the purposes of the exploitation of the child shall be guilty of an offence."

Now that I have shown that you cannot bring your child abroad and do harm to them except in the case of abortion, why aren't you calling for this Act to be extended to cover abortion?


Edit: P.S. Why haven't you answered the other questions, haven't been given the party line yet?

kylith

Kidchameleon wrote: »

do we have hard evidence that humans at an early stage of development are not aware?

The nervous system is not fully hooked up until about week 20 of gestation.

lazygal

Ralphdejones wrote: »

You can do all sorts of things abroad to children that are not legal here, you can't stop people going abroad to do them.

The UK stops people traveling abroad for sex tourism and also has legislation for prosecuting those who have sex with children below the UK age of consent, even if the age of consent is lower in the country they have sex in.

Once again, do you support repealing the amendment allowing women to travel abroad for the express purpose of killing an unborn child which is supposed to have constitutional protection? Should women be prosecuted for killing their unborn children in another country? Why do we have an explicit provision in our constitution allowing women to travel to kill their unborn children next to a provision giving the unborn constitutional protection? What's the difference between killing an unborn child after traveling to do so and killing an unborn child here?

Gatica

Amazing that according to http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/mapeuropeabrate.html Ireland is 3rd from the bottom in terms of percentage of pregnancies aborted. According to all those who fool themselves into believing there is no abortion here - shouldn't Ireland then be at the bottom of that chart? If it's not at the bottom, it's because we do have abortion, just not on Irish soil ...gives food for thought.

BBC have here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6235557.stm in the chart for "Abortion Rules" under the "To save life of mother" category listed that Ireland's gestation limit for abortion is "No set limit" (as we know from our constitution).
It seems more humane in those numerous countries where there a lower 12 week limit to terminations than here where the limit is "No set limit" or England (where most of the terminations happen for Irish women) where the limit is 24 weeks. Surely allowing abortion here would give Ireland better control over those limits??
Exporting the women with the ability and means only makes the rules more lax for them (as 24 weeks is at the higher scale of limits in the EU, with only Cyprus being higher at 28 weeks), while making the poor and vulnerable stay and suffer.

geret wrote: »

can you link to show she didn't speak English?
from the it article she choose to move
"She moved shortly thereafter as she hoped she might get more help elsewhere."

When it became apparent to her at around 16 weeks that her request for termination/abortion could not be granted and she'd need 1500 quid, she became desperate and attempted suicide. The only thing reported is that she was interrupted, we don't know how, we don't know by whom. 10-14 days later she moved accommodation and that made it more difficult for the parties concerned to find her. I doubt her reasons for changing location were something like, I dunno, to get an apartment with a view....
Personally I'm wondering why she's was out there alone for those 10-14 days... Are suicidal people not treated or helped in some way here? Somewhere between then and when she was told to see a GP/went to the GP, no one seems to have been there to recognise the problem and help her in any actually useful way.
Interview with the reporter who interviewed the young lady is on Newstalk, you can listen to more details there than seem to be reported in the other paper articles I've read. They also mention that she's a foreign national and does not speak English.

jank

Sarky wrote: »

She makes quite a bit of sense.

Women are the ones this affects most, so they should be the driving force behind change. Men can lend all the support they want, and that's great and she appreciates it, just don't go around speaking over or for the women involved.

It appears that you haven't actually listened to what she was saying. You're the very type of person she was talking about.

An anti-rascist who happens to be sexist...good one. She is a bit batty or at least comes across like that. If a pro-lifer gave a speech like that people would be onto it like a fly on $hit.

bumper234

Ralphdejones wrote: »

When are you putting her on TV so everyone can learn more ?

Why would i put anyone on TV?

You seem to think that this one person speaks for everyone?

Gatica

Piliger wrote: »

Mixing two completely different issues doesn't help anything. We have an essentially free healthcare service paid for by the tax payers. If someone comes to the country who can't speak English I don't believe it is our responsibility to fix that. if she has no money then she shouldn't be coming here in the first place. This kind of appalling entitlement mind set is an abomination im my view. I do not believe our system should be there to fix every ill and every issue for everyone. People have a responsibility to deal with some things themselves.

The abortion issue surrounding what happened to this women, basically a case of intimidation and of intentional institutional procrastination, is a separate matter and one which I am completely and totally upset with.

I believe your argument belongs in a different thread, if what you're incensed at is that she came here with no money and is now availing of our health-care.
While there may be immigrants who are leeching off the state, there are plenty that have integrated and become part of Irish society and pay taxes and contribute far more than many other Irish people.

swampgas

Ralphdejones wrote: »

You can do all sorts of things abroad to children that are not legal here, you can't stop people going abroad to do them.

Sure you could stop them, that's what the X case was about. We could change the constitution and allow the state to block any pregnant woman leaving the country if there is a suspicion that she is seeking an abortion. We could also make anyone assisting her an accessory to the crime.

After all, according to pro-life "an embryo or foetus is a person" logic, a person of equal value to an adult is being smuggled out of the country to be killed.

We wouldn't allow someone to smuggle a born child or an adult out of the country with the express intent of killing them, so why are you so blasé about unborn persons being smuggled out in someone's uterus?

It's ironic how pro-choice people are often called callous baby-killers, yet pro-lifers really don't seem to care at all about women travelling abroad for abortions, when the result is exactly the same - an alleged Irish "person" is killed.

So, why exactly is it okay to give women information about abortion in the UK, ok to allow them to travel to the UK, allow them to abort in the UK, and return to Ireland as if nothing had happened, when the same abortion in Ireland is considered to be the moral equivalent to murder?

I'm genuinely interested to know what your thoughts are on this apparent contradiction.

.

geret

Ralphdejones wrote: »

The new spokesperson is called Amanda, she had a big mask slip yesterday

she doesn't seem too rational. I wonder if her language used is indicative of her education levels?

Ralphdejones

bumper234 wrote: »

Why would i put anyone on TV?

You seem to think that this one person speaks for everyone?

You're the one defending her speech.

Sarky

jank wrote: »

An anti-rascist who happens to be sexist...good one. She is a bit batty or at least comes across like that. If a pro-lifer gave a speech like that people would be onto it like a fly on $hit.

Sure what would a dark-skinned woman in Ireland know about Irish racism?

Godge

geret wrote: »

she doesn't seem too rational. I wonder if her language used is indicative of her education levels?

No point asking Ralph. He has to go off to his betters to get answers to difficult questions that he is unable to answer or else disappear for a few hours while hoping the questions go away.

geret

Sarky wrote: »

Sure what would a dark-skinned woman in Ireland know about Irish racism?

what has racism got to do with abortion?

or are we just throwing everything in "this racist country" in to the pot?