woman refused abortion - Mod Note in first post.

swampgas

conorh91 wrote: »

Although the terminology isn't ideal, it's not so much the terminology I have a problem with, but dwelling on the terminology.

The heart of the matter is whether the unborn is entitled to any rights, and if so, whether he is entitled to assert those rights at the expense of another.

Imagine the following scenario.

A woman is pregnant with twins, at 20 weeks gestation. She and her husband are visiting a hospital for a scan, and are so delighted with the confirmation of the health of their unborn babies, they go for a meal. A car is parked outside the restaurant. The car explodes in a terrorist bomb attack. Both parents survive, but one unborn twin dies. There are no other victims.

Should the unborn twin be regarded as a victim?
Should criminal injuries compensation be paid in respect of the death of the unborn?
Should a charge of murder be brought against the perpetrators, or should a lesser charge be brought?

After the explosion, the pregnant woman is in the hospital. She is distraught, but perfectly lucid. The pregnant woman says that she cannot bear to give birth to the one remaining twin.

She attempts to injure herself to the extent that she will survive, but the remaining twin will be aborted. Her husband intervenes, and in the resulting fracas, he intentionally puts his hands on her and restrains her to the effect that he is, in law, assaulting her.

The mother wishes to make a complaint of assault. Should her husband be prosecuted, and found guilty of assault?

That's quite the scenario. Some of those issues aren't that new though. If a woman miscarries at 20 weeks, there isn't a death certificate. As far as I know, legally, the death of a foetus isn't considered murder.

I think it's clear that instinctively people realise that the progression from fertilized egg to bouncing baby is a gradual one, and it is difficult to have hard and fast definitions.

Like it or not, a foetus is not the same thing as a born infant, or a child, or an adult. Assigning it equal rights under the law is a distortion of reality, and leads to (IMO) real injustices, such as the case of the young rape victim.

mikemac1

SilverScreen wrote: »

Pro-lifers seem to be oblivious to the reality that the world does not need more children, for environmental, social and economic reasons. The world is already way way waaaay overpopulated as it is.

If I was supreme ruler of the world I would put a freeze on child birth for a period and encourage adoption instead.

Ireland still hasn't reached the pre famine levels. I doubt any other country in Europe is like this

If overpopulation is an issue it isn't ours

irishpancake

conorh91 wrote: »

Whether there does or there doesn't, I am in agreement that your statement would be broadly accepted by most people on either side of the abortion debate.

My point to you was simply in response to your statements as regards "choice".

You were critical of taking away someone's "choice", as though that were the Maginot Line in the debate that nobody should cross (in any event, we all know what happened the Maginot Line)

For this reason, using emotive words like "pro choice" and "pro life" are just silly. We are all usually in favor of life, and we are all usually in favor of choice, and all of us love Mom and Pop and Apple Pie.

It's meaningless stuff. It doesn't get us anywhere.

If the debate on abortion in Irish law is ever to be resolved, it has to focus on the substantive issue of reconciling women's rights with the rights of the unborn, insofar as either side can exert rights over the other.

perhaps it would be instructive, and indeed constructive, to examine where else in the Western World, this entity "the unborn" has a Constitutional "Right to Life", equal to that of the pregnant adult, usually, fully grown person, carrying this fetus, except in extremely exceptional circumstances.

If we ask ourselves in 2014, where did this concept come from, and where does it take us, only to further, and never-ending series of conflicting claims to which entity gets precedence, or preferment.

conorh91

swampgas wrote: »

That's quite the scenario. Some of those issues aren't that new though. If a woman miscarries at 20 weeks, there isn't a death certificate.

No, there's no death certificate. But some locals, and the family, are considering erecting a monument. The dead unborn twin would be the only name. They seek public funds. Is the dead unborn twin a victim for the benefit of the town memorial?

It isn't murder in law, but that doesn't necessarily make it equally wrong, which is what I am getting after.

volchitsa

irishpancake wrote: »

Are you on a PC?

If yes, do you see this, see below, when you edit a post? [May not last, as I think pics are not allowed]
If, not, go to User Control Panel,

then Edit Options on RHS, under

Settings & Options

In Edit Options, scroll down to

Miscellaneous Options

you can choose the Editor to use there, usually 2.Standard is OK, but 1. Basic is "basic".....

you could be on basic, so change to Standard, and hit the Big Blue Save Changes Button....

right there, in that Miscellaneous Box...:)

Ok, thanks hugely for taking all that time, irishpancake. I'm on an ipad here, and no I don't see all the

codes etc, even though when I followed your instructions I appeared to have the enhanced version (WYSIWYG) enabled. So I moved down to the standard version (not basic) in case the i pad couldn't handle the enhanced one, but no joy.

But it doesn't matter too much since I see on your screen grab that they appear to be pretty much standard html codes, so I know enough of those to get by without the icons. So that's grand, you've helped a lot! I've tried an italic to see if it works.

Thanks again.

(And I think the mystery is solved, I tried to do a smily with symbols and I don't have enough posts yet, and also had to cut out your link, so maybe it will all come right when I have enough posts...)

And yes, it worked. That's grand I can manage with that. Thanks again, pancake!

volchitsa

swampgas wrote: »

That's quite the scenario. Some of those issues aren't that new though.

It's also a disgusting attempt to twist the genuine tragedy of the Omagh bombs into some pathetic and unconvincing anti-choice scenario. How dare that poster try to pretend that a woman who had lost one of her unborn twins in that way would then try to destroy the other, or that if she did become so unhinged in the aftermath of the event, that no-none would treat the PTSD which would be the real problem, not the pregnancy.

There is no comparison with a woman pregnant through rape, and who refuses to make her rapist a father. None whatsoever. :mad:

swampgas

conorh91 wrote: »

No, there's no death certificate. But some locals, and the family, are considering erecting a monument. The dead unborn twin would be the only name. They seek public funds. Is the dead unborn twin a victim for the benefit of the town memorial?

It isn't murder in law, but that doesn't necessarily make it equally wrong, which is what I am getting after.

To be honest, why should the way people want to grieve or make a memorial be legislated for? If the townfolk want to put the dead unborn twin on the memorial, that's up to them.

Life is messy and full of grey areas. I don't think the law is the best instrument for dealing with complicated issues like abortion. Most (all?) women would prefer never to end up in a situation where they have an unwanted pregnancy, but it happens. Who are we to tell a woman what the correct moral option is, whether she should have an abortion or not? Surely she can make that moral choice for herself?

conorh91

swampgas wrote: »

To be honest, why should the way people want to grieve or make a memorial be legislated for? If the townfolk want to put the dead unborn twin on the memorial, that's up to them.

But I am not talking about legislation, I am talking about the use of public money.

Should public money be used to procure a monument which calls this unborn foetus a "victim" of the attack, thereby endorsing the unborn's "victim" status?

And further, should the state's criminal injuries compensation be payable to the parents in respect of the unborn's "victim's" death, as would otherwise be payable after an unlawful killing?

volchitsa

swampgas wrote: »

To be honest, why should the way people want to grieve or make a memorial be legislated for? If the townfolk want to put the dead unborn twin on the memorial, that's up to them.

Life is messy and full of grey areas. I don't think the law is the best instrument for dealing with complicated issues like abortion. Most (all?) women would prefer never to end up in a situation where they have an unwanted pregnancy, but it happens. Who are we to tell a woman what the correct moral option is, whether she should have an abortion or not? Surely she can make that moral choice for herself?

The poster would like to claim that the unborn twins who died in the Omagh bombing were counted as two more victims, but they aren't, they are always mentioned, but the youngest victim, officially, was an 18 month old baby.

I can't post links yet, but look up Omagh bombing victims and select the CAIN link, which is the generally accepted defence for all Troubles deaths.

The bomb caught family groups who were out shopping and a number of families lost more than one member. Other families had several members injured. People who were close friends, and who worked together in several of the shops in Omagh, were also killed in the explosion. Three employees of Watterson's clothes shop were killed in the explosion. The total number of dead was 29 with hundreds injured some of whom were in a critical state. Nine children (5 girls and 4 boys; including an 18 month old baby), 14 women and 5 men died at the scene or in hospital. One woman who was killed was seven months pregnant with twins - the two unborn children also died.

volchitsa

conorh91 wrote: »

But I am not talking about legislation, I am talking about the use of public money.

Should public money be used to procure a monument which calls this unborn foetus a "victim" of the attack, thereby endorsing the unborn's "victim" status?

And further, should the state's criminal injuries compensation be payable to the parents in respect of the unborn's "victim's" death, as would otherwise be payable after an unlawful killing?

The law at the moment says the unborn are not yet born, and they have no legal existence.

But why is any of this this relevant in the case of a woman pregnant through rape? :mad:
That is disgusting abuse and misrepresentation of a real life tragedy for your own propaganda purposes.

swampgas

conorh91 wrote: »

But I am not talking about legislation, I am talking about the use of public money.

Should public money be used to procure a monument which calls this unborn foetus a "victim" of the attack, and further, should the state's criminal injuries compensation be payable to the parents in respect of the unborn's death, as would otherwise be payable after an unlawful killing?

Off topic. This is about a young rape victim being denied an abortion. If you want to discuss those other issues you might want to start a separate thread.

conorh91

volchitsa wrote: »

The poster would like to claim that the unborn twins who died in the Omagh bombing were counted as two more victims, but they aren't, they are always mentioned, but the youngest victim, officially, was an 18 month old baby.

If you must know, I had in mind the death of the "victim" who was known as "Baby Doherty", who was killed in the Dublin Monaghan Bombings.

Although my example was obviously amended.

swampgas wrote: »

Off topic. This is about a young rape victim being denied an abortion. If you want to discuss those other issues you might want to start a separate thread.

It is relevant to ask whether foetuses can be victims, because it follows logically that is a foetus can be a victim, then a fortiori, a foetus is entitled to certain rights.

conorh91

volchitsa wrote: »

The law at the moment says the unborn are not yet born, and they have no legal existence.

You need to brush up on your understanding of the law.

They do have a legal existence. Of course they do, even if they are not persons.

volchitsa

conorh91 wrote: »

If you must know, I had in mind the death of the "victim" who was known as "Baby Doherty", who was killed in the Dublin Monaghan Bombings.

Although my example was obviously amended.

It is relevant to ask whether foetuses can be victims, because it follows logically that is a foetus can be a victim, then a fortiori, a foetus is entitled to certain rights.

Yes, amended to pretend that the mother might want to destroy the other foetus. I have no words fit to post here for someone like you. I lost a member of my family in the Omagh bombing, and there were also two unborn twins who died in it. And no, they do not count in the total of the victims, they are always mentioned separately. I object strongly to your attempt at twisting a real tragedy into something utterly different for propaganda purposes, and if you don't stop I am going to report your posts. How dare you insinuate that their mother might have wished to destroy her remaining child, had she survived? Or that there is any similarity to a pregnancy caused through rape?

conorh91

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes, amended to pretend that the mother might want to destroy the other foetus. I have no words fit to post here for someone like you.

Oh ffs This isn't about you. It's a thought experiment for crying out loud, stop trying to get offended.

Piliger

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes, amended to pretend that the mother might want to destroy the other foetus. I have no words fit to post here for someone like you. I lost a member of my family in the Omagh bombing, and there were also two unborn twins who died in it. And no, they do not count in the total of the victims, they are always mentioned separately. I object strongly to your attempt at twisting a real tragedy into something utterly different for propaganda purposes, and if you don't stop I am going to report your posts. How dare you insinuate that their mother might have wished to destroy her remaining child, had she survived? Or that there is any similarity to a pregnancy caused through rape?

I don't agree with you irrespective of your personal circumstances. He is entitled to his opinion and to express it. And though I don't necessarily agree with him, he hasn't stated it in any kind of offensive way.

volchitsa

conorh91 wrote: »

You need to brush up on your understanding of the law.

They do have a legal existence. Of course they do, even if they are not persons.

They are not counted among the victims, and I think your disgusting behaviour is more important than whatever point you think you are making.

The mother of an unborn wanted child which was killed by someone else is in no way similar to a woman who is pregnant through rape. The comparison is stupid and offensive, to women in either situation. And both exist alas.

That you can think they are similar shows how little you understand pregnancy or motherhood.
Or probably, women.

volchitsa

Piliger wrote: »

I don't agree with you irrespective of your personal circumstances. He is entitled to his opinion and to express it. And though I don't necessarily agree with him, he hasn't stated it in any kind of offensive way.

You don't think it is offensive to the parents of an unborn twin killed in a bomb (knowing that this has happened in real life) to compare their reaction to the remaining twin to a woman pregnant through rape??

volchitsa

conorh91 wrote: »

Oh ffs This isn't about you. It's a thought experiment for crying out loud, stop trying to get offended.

It's a stupid and misleading thought experiment, which makes no sense at all. A woman who has lost one twin in a bomb may be suffering from PTSD, she is not suicidal because she is carrying her rapist's child!

Completely different, and deeply cynical of you to try to misrepresent things in that way.

conorh91

volchitsa wrote: »

It's a stupid and misleading thought experiment, which makes no sense at all. A woman who has lost one twin in a bomb may be suffering from PTSD, she is not suicidal because she is carrying her rapist's child!

Completely different, and deeply cynical of you to try to misrepresent things in that way.

I am not "misrepresenting" anything.

How can you "misrepresent" something in a made-up thought experiment?

I used the example of twins, because I wanted to raise two distinct scenarios.

I got the idea from the recognition by the Dublin coroner of Baby Doherty, although my thought experiment was not based on the facts of that incident, nor any other incident. Obviously.

I am trying to get to the issue of whether foetuses can be considered victims. That's all.

Piliger

conorh91 wrote: »

But I am not talking about legislation, I am talking about the use of public money.

Should public money be used to procure a monument which calls this unborn foetus a "victim" of the attack, thereby endorsing the unborn's "victim" status?

And further, should the state's criminal injuries compensation be payable to the parents in respect of the unborn's "victim's" death, as would otherwise be payable after an unlawful killing?

Yes is my answer, from a Pro Choice viewpoint. Being Pro Choice is not believing that a foetus has no rights. Being Pro Choice means that we believe that a women's rights outweigh those of her foetus. That is a very different thing. And in addition to that most Pro Choice supporters believe in a phased progression of rights for a foetus, where there comes a point, somewhere around the 20-24 week point (for most I think) where the rights of a foetus start to match those of the host mother, and the host mother looses the right to terminate.

Getting back to the issue you raise. A foetus is, for a host mother, a 'potential' human life. And while she hosts it and wants it, I believe the law rightly treats it as an entity which, if damaged by a third party and NOT the host mother, is considered a killing of some degree - depending on the jurisdiction.

As a Pro Choice person I would support that view. As in the case where a murder takes place of a pregnant woman, I would support the viewpoint that that is a double murder - the degree of which would be decided based on issues that I think are too complex to start a discussion on them here imho.

Godge

conorh91 wrote: »

It is relevant to ask whether foetuses can be victims, because it follows logically that is a foetus can be a victim, then a fortiori, a foetus is entitled to certain rights.

You are using some very silly examples. Being a victim does not make you a person or even a human. There are many memorials commemorating dead animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_in_War_Memorial

http://monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/culture/animals

A memorial to an unborn child does not give it rights.

conorh91 wrote: »

A woman is pregnant with twins, at 20 weeks gestation. She and her husband are visiting a hospital for a scan, and are so delighted with the confirmation of the health of their unborn babies, they go for a meal. A car is parked outside the restaurant. The car explodes in a terrorist bomb attack. Both parents survive, but one unborn twin dies. There are no other victims.

Should the unborn twin be regarded as a victim?
Should criminal injuries compensation be paid in respect of the death of the unborn?
Should a charge of murder be brought against the perpetrators, or should a lesser charge be brought?

After the explosion, the pregnant woman is in the hospital. She is distraught, but perfectly lucid. The pregnant woman says that she cannot bear to give birth to the one remaining twin.

She attempts to injure herself to the extent that she will survive, but the remaining twin will be aborted. Her husband intervenes, and in the resulting fracas, he intentionally puts his hands on her and restrains her to the effect that he is, in law, assaulting her.

The mother wishes to make a complaint of assault. Should her husband be prosecuted, and found guilty of assault?

People do not become suicidal immediately after a traumatic event so your scenario is complete rubbish. They do suffer from PTSD which may cause self-harm but that is not suicidal.

Phoebas

volchitsa wrote: »

The law at the moment says the unborn are not yet born, and they have no legal existence.

Of course they have a legal existence. The 'unborn' child in this case had a legal team appointed to represent it.

Piliger

volchitsa wrote: »

You don't think it is offensive to the parents of an unborn twin killed in a bomb (knowing that this has happened in real life) to compare their reaction to the remaining twin to a woman pregnant through rape??

You may find it offensive and I get that. I find it a matter of free discussion, whether I object to it or not. I don't believe that we have a right to use our 'offence' to stop other people having a view. Right now I don't believe he is doing it in any kind of gratuitously offensive or insulting manner. That is all.

conorh91

Piliger wrote: »

Yes is my answer, from a Pro Choice viewpoint. Being Pro Choice is not believing that a foetus has no rights. Being Pro Choice means that we believe that a women's rights outweigh those of her foetus. That is a very different thing. And in addition to that most Pro Choice supporters believe in a phased progression of rights for a foetus, where there comes a point, somewhere around the 20-24 week point (for most I think) where the rights of a foetus start to match those of the host mother, and the host mother looses the right to terminate.

Getting back to the issue you raise. A foetus is, for a host mother, a 'potential' human life. And while she hosts it and wants it, I believe the law rightly treats it as an entity which, if damaged by a third party and NOT the host mother, is considered a killing of some degree - depending on the jurisdiction.

As a Pro Choice person I would support that view. As in the case where a murder takes place of a pregnant woman, I would support the viewpoint that that is a double murder - the degree of which would be decided based on issues that I think are too complex to start a discussion on them here imho.

Thank you.

I would be broadly in agreement with your position, although I am doubtful as to whether rights that exist "on license" so to speak are rights in the real sense.

That is, the foetus only exists as the 'licensee' of another, and can have those rights removed arbitrarily at any time, but presumably only on the consent of his mother, a bit like being evicted by the landlady of a pub.

That's not meant to sound crass, I'm trying but probably failing to make a non-offensive comparison.

Piliger

Godge wrote: »

People do not become suicidal immediately after a traumatic event so your scenario is complete rubbish. They do suffer from PTSD which may cause self-harm but that is not suicidal.

I'm afraid this assertion is not correct. This is one example.

Piliger

conorh91 wrote: »

Thank you.

I would be broadly in agreement with your position, although I am doubtful as to whether rights that exist "on license" so to speak are rights in the real sense.

That is, the foetus only exists as the 'licensee' of another, and can have those rights removed arbitrarily at any time, but presumably only on the consent of his mother, a bit like being evicted by the landlady of a pub.

That's not meant to sound crass, I'm trying to make a non-offensive comparison.

I understand exactly what you are saying and I don't find it crass. It's a very delicate and emotion circumstance, but the law MUST deal with it.

I'm not sure I see any real distinction in your assessment of rights here, or positives in the 'licensee' analogy, sorry. The analogy is too emotive. I do think that you, like me, are simply trying to interpret it in a way that we can relate to.

volchitsa

Piliger wrote: »

I'm afraid this assertion is not correct.

People with PTSD can become suicidal over time, particularly if they do not get proper help. This is a problem with soldiers and similar groups of people, where virility and courage are prized, and fear is seen as failure.

It seems to be far worse for US soldiers coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan that UK soldiers, and one important difference appears to be that the NHS ensures that ex-soldiers continue to get help, whereas US soldiers who leave the forces may not have access to psychological help.

Again, no comparison with a pregnant woman, even if her PTSD made her suicidal. And still less with a woman whose pregnancy is what is causing the distress. And yes, I do find it offensive for the poster who tried to pretend that the two situations were similar to insist that they might be. They just aren't.

Mountainsandh

Piliger wrote: »

I understand exactly what you are saying and I don't find it crass. It's a very delicate and emotion circumstance, but the law MUST deal with it.

The US have dealt with it, albeit somewhat unsatisfactorily :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

which pretty much clashes with the Roe vs Wade decision on the issue of abortion, although the act above has a caveat which states that none of it may apply to abortion.

In the Roe vs Wade decision

The Court explicitly rejected a fetal "right to life" argument.[29]

I personally do not think that the unborn fetus should be recognized as a person by law until it is viable.
It goes without saying that when a pregnant woman is a victim of a crime, the hardship inflicted on her takes on another dimension if she was expecting, and prosecutions should reflect that, but imo there is no need for an Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

As regards the respects a community or the family would wish to pay to the unborn, it is not really a matter for law, and I would guess that no one would resent parents or a community for acknowledging the potential life lost.

edit : one thing that I would come back to, is the fact that of the 2 propositions ie
a) the unborn is a person and abortion is illegal
b) the woman 's rights are paramount and abortion is legal

... one completely annihilates the rights of women over what happens in their body, while the other gives them a choice to exercise their rights over their own body or not.

So indeed option b) is all to do with choice.

I don't accept that the choice is made at time of intercourse, I think women should be free to have intercourse whether or not they intend to procreate, and I acknowledge that contraception can malfunction, or that forced intercourse can take place.

Godge

Piliger wrote: »

I'm afraid this assertion is not correct. This is one example.

Not relevant.

There is a difference between wanting to kill oneself as a result of something that happens to you and wanting to kill oneself all of a sudden because one of two twins inside you has been killed and you want to get rid of the other.

One, as in the example you have given is realistic, the other as put forward by conorh is unrealistic.