Is it still 1971 in Ireland? The contraceptive train still runs - Under another name.

obplayer

obplayer wrote: »

Dr Peter Boylan, former Master of the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin, disagrees.

A leading obstetrician claimed the inability to end Savita Halappanavar's pregnancy until there was a substantial and real risk of her death ultimately cost the 31-year-old her life. Peter Boylan revealed that by the time she was sick enough to justify an abortion on the morning of Wednesday October 24 last year, she was already suffering from sepsis blood infection.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news...-29201735.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-22185690


Halapannavar’s husband maintains that her death could have been prevented if hospital officials had intervened earlier to terminate her non-viable fetus. Now, after a two-week review of the coroner’s report, that position has been confirmed by an Irish jury

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013...abortion-care/

SAVITA Halappanavar would most likely have lived had she received a termination within two days of her admission to Galway Hospital.

http://www.herald.ie/news/courts/abo...-29205695.html

Perhaps you should contact him and tell him how your qualifications are superior to his.

I don't disagree with any thing that he said. The poster I quoted said that the abortion would cure the septicaemia. I just pointed out that this wasn't true. Also, the fact that Savita was an Indian national led her to obtaining this antibiotic resistance due to the endemic use of antibiotic there.

If I had been the pharmacist on the ward that day, I would have made sure she had been treated prophylactically as per local guidelines which would have had a more favourable outcome.

obplayer

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't disagree with any thing that he said. The poster I quoted said that the abortion would cure the septicaemia. I just pointed out that this wasn't true. Also, the fact that Savita was an Indian national led her to obtaining this antibiotic resistance due to the endemic use of antibiotic there.

If I had been the pharmacist on the ward that day, I would have made sure she had been treated prophylactically as per local guidelines which would have had a more favourable outcome.

What part of this

Peter Boylan revealed that by the time she was sick enough to justify an
abortion on the morning of Wednesday October 24 last year, she was already
suffering from sepsis blood infection

do you disagree with? This expert is stating that an earlier abortion would have saved her life. Please tell us your qualifications for disagreeing with him.

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

Prophylactic antibiotic regime starting when she first fell ill. It's that simple. The sepsis wouldn't have taken hold then.

Also should have been treated iv rather than oral. I'm not aware what sensitivities the ladies bloods showed. Patient should have received antibiotics to treat the septicaemia immediately ultra wide spectrum or not.

The treatment she received was appalling to be honest. It wasn't an antiquated abortion law that killed this patient but inappropriate clinical decisions.

No it really is not "that simple". Do you claim that no abortion was needed at all, and that antibiotics would have been enough on their own?

If so, you are talking nonsense. She needed a termination, and well before she was clinically ill enough to be at risk of dying. It was already too late by then. Extra tests would almost certainly not have made enough difference to the speed with which the decision to abort was made, according to Boylan. Do you know better than him?

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't disagree with any thing that he said. The poster I quoted said that the abortion would cure the septicaemia. I just pointed out that this wasn't true. Also, the fact that Savita was an Indian national led her to obtaining this antibiotic resistance due to the endemic use of antibiotic there.

If I had been the pharmacist on the ward that day, I would have made sure she had been treated prophylactically as per local guidelines which would have had a more favourable outcome.

You either misunderstand or misrepresent what I am saying. It was an essential part of the treatment she needed. I never said it was enough on its own.

Do you think that an abortion could actually have been avoided altogether?

Frito

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not quite that simple

I would imagine that the outcome of any petition regarding parity of both parents in adoption would result in birth fathers having their status legally acknowledged, ie their consent required for the adoption process rather than their ability to hand the child over to the state with only consultation offered to the mother. In effect, birth fathers become responsible rather than abdicate responsibility, so perhaps not quite the equality under law initially sought.

It's the difficulty that emerges when trying to compare abortion rights with parental rights (or abdication thereof). In the first instance there is no child to support, in the second instance there is. The child is entitled to financial support from both parents, regardless of which parent it lives with. So a mother may make a claim on behalf of the child to the father and vice versa.

It's a tricky one, I'm not sure paternal/paper abortion/adoption can be achieved easily. It would be unlike abortion or adoption, and a similar provision would be then be needed for women, ie for women to 'paper abort' a child by handing it to the father and bearing no legal responsibility (I doubt this is already the case but open to correction).

One eyed Jack

Frito wrote: »

I would imagine that the outcome of any petition regarding parity of both parents in adoption would result in birth fathers having their status legally acknowledged, ie their consent required for the adoption process rather than their ability to hand the child over to the state with only consultation offered to the mother. In effect, birth fathers become responsible rather than abdicate responsibility, so perhaps not quite the equality under law initially sought.

These are exactly what's being proposed in the Children and Family Relationships Bill 2014. As it stands at the moment, only the mother has automatic guardianship of the child, the father doesn't, and what this new bill proposes is that both parents will have automatic guardianship. It still doesn't mean that either the father or the mother will be automatically entitled to apply to give up the child for adoption regardless of the other parents wishes, as was suggested by some posters earlier.

It's the difficulty that emerges when trying to compare abortion rights with parental rights (or abdication thereof). In the first instance there is no child to support, in the second instance there is. The child is entitled to financial support from both parents, regardless of which parent it lives with. So a mother may make a claim on behalf of the child to the father and vice versa.

That's why the whole 'paper abortion' concept is a ridiculous comparison to abortion, because neither parent has that right on their own, whereas in terms of an abortion, then neither party has any obligation to a child that doesn't exist.

It's why advocates of 'paper abortions for men' tie themselves up in knots trying to argue that a man should be allowed to abdicate his responsibility towards a child he doesn't want, while at the same time trying to maintain that this is a father's rights issue!

It's a bit like saying "Well she wanted to have the child, I didn't, so now I have no responsibility for that child". Their attitude doesn't negate the fact that a child now exists, and they have a duty towards that child. They can hardly argue father's rights while ignoring father's responsibilities.

It's a tricky one, I'm not sure paternal/paper abortion/adoption can be achieved easily. It would be unlike abortion or adoption, and a similar provision would be then be needed for women, ie for women to 'paper abort' a child by handing it to the father and bearing no legal responsibility (I doubt this is already the case but open to correction).

It's never going to happen in reality, when most legal systems are based around acting in the best interests of the child, and not in the best interests of parents that want to abdicate their responsibilities towards that child.

The whole 'paper abortion for men' is nothing more than a poorly thought out specious strawman that always gets thrown in with abortion, that actually bears no similarity to abortion whatsoever, and is merely a poor attempt at so-called 'gender equality' for men.

Squeedily Spooch

Earl Turner wrote: »

Will surely be a very distant thought when you are holding your child for the first time.

Do you think women's bodies just snap back into a pre-pregnancy state once the baby comes out? Incontinence, tearing, bowel problems, bleeding, stretch marks, then postnatal depression on the mental side of things to name but a few common problems from pregnancy. It's not all sunshine and rainbows during or after giving birth. A woman's body is changed forever.

JupiterKid

I can't believe the number of ferverent so called "pro-lifers" on this thread. Surely this country should have learned something after the X case, the C case and the unnecessary death of Savita Halapannavar?

Abortion wouldn't exist in an ideal world. But we don't live in an ideal world and in the case of rape or risk to a woman's health abortion is a no-brainer. To make a woman continue with a pregnancy when in those circumstances or if the fetus is non-viable is simply barbaric.

I believe in a woman's right to choose.

In the case of this particular train protest, I think it was rather irresponsible of Ms Coppinger and others to ingest the pills when they really must be administered under strict medical supervision. But I do see the point of the protest.

RobertKK

JupiterKid wrote: »

I can't believe the number of ferverent so called "pro-lifers" on this thread. Surely this country should have learned something after the X case, the C case and the unnecessary death of Savita Halapannavar?

Abortion wouldn't exist in an ideal world. But we don't live in an ideal world and in the case of rape or risk to a woman's health abortion is a no-brainer. To make a woman continue with a pregnancy when in those circumstances or if the fetus is non-viable is simply barbaric.

I believe in a woman's right to choose.

In the case of this particular train protest, I think it was rather irresponsible of Ms Coppinger and others to ingest the pills when they really must be administered under strict medical supervision. But I do see the point of the protest.

X case - abortion not a treatment for a mental illness.
C case - woman didn't want an abortion, she wanted her baby adopted but had her unborn killed against her will.
Savita Halappanavar - poor treatment by hospital staff, lack of treatment and lack of treatment that was allowed, incompetence. Findings showed the legislation brought in by the government as wanted by pro-choice people would not have saved Savita.

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

The reason that she died is that she wasn't treated with antibiotic prophylactics when she was first diagnosed on admission. This was a failing of doctors and pharmacists in the hospital. Your analogy has a flaw(actually, a few). You seem to think that an abortion can cure a bacterial infection. An abortion isn't an antibiotic. You also wouldn't wait till the abortion is over to start antibiotics.

have you read the HIQA report? there were over 20 points of failure in her treatment. Each one, if it had not of occurred, probably would have resulted in her survival.

At the time she was admitted if she had received correct treatment there's a good chance that she might have survived.
However that didn't happen and at the time she asked for a termination (or even beforehand), if she had of received one, she probably would have survived. You can say that's not the case and that the original reason was the lack of antibiotics etc but if that's the case and you want to regress, lets just say it's her own fault for getting pregnant in Ireland, a country that gives substandard care to women and has dark age reproductive laws.

The treatment Savita received was horrendous. She was given substandard care and died because of it. It's not the the first time it's occurred. The HIQA report detailed other occasions and detailed the recommendations they'd made at the time of these previous incidents. Recommendations which had not then and still aren't implemented. Women have died and will continue to die because of this.

And what's just as bad are all the pro life idiots who are able to revise history to suite their narrative. "An abortion wouldn't have saved her" Really, well both her and the foetus died so I guess we'll never know if that's the truth. Unless of course we loot at other situations in other countries where an abortion in similar occasions did save a womans live. And we could listen to the overwhelmingly vast majority of doctors who agree.

RobertKK

Grayson wrote: »

have you read the HIQA report? there were over 20 points of failure in her treatment. Each one, if it had not of occurred, probably would have resulted in her survival.

At the time she was admitted if she had received correct treatment there's a good chance that she might have survived.
However that didn't happen and at the time she asked for a termination (or even beforehand), if she had of received one, she probably would have survived. You can say that's not the case and that the original reason was the lack of antibiotics etc but if that's the case and you want to regress, lets just say it's her own fault for getting pregnant in Ireland, a country that gives substandard care to women and has dark age reproductive laws.

The treatment Savita received was horrendous. She was given substandard care and died because of it. It's not the the first time it's occurred. The HIQA report detailed other occasions and detailed the recommendations they'd made at the time of these previous incidents. Recommendations which had not then and still aren't implemented. Women have died and will continue to die because of this.

And what's just as bad are all the pro life idiots who are able to revise history to suite their narrative. "An abortion wouldn't have saved her" Really, well both her and the foetus died so I guess we'll never know if that's the truth. Unless of course we loot at other situations in other countries where an abortion in similar occasions did save a womans live. And we could listen to the overwhelmingly vast majority of doctors who agree.

In India where abortion is allowed, a pregnant woman dies on average every 12 minutes.

efb

RobertKK wrote: »

In India where abortion is allowed, a pregnant woman dies on average every 12 minutes.

I don't think the comparison is fair at all- very sensationilist

Grayson

RobertKK wrote: »

In India where abortion is allowed, a pregnant woman dies on average every 12 minutes.

can you provide any evidence what so ever to suggest that those two figures are negatively related?

I'd imagine the reason for that figure is because of two things.

1) a billion people live there
2) half of them live in abject poverty with little to no healthcare available.

There is one issue with abortion in India though and that's how many people terminate so they won't have female children. Although I'm pro choice I still think that's wrong. It shows a massive prejudice against women. That however is a separate issue.

strobe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not quite that simple -






http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/adoption_and_fostering/adopting_a_child.html[/url]

So, as I said, single women or those having a child who's father is not their husband, can legally sever the legal rights and responsibilities they have in relation to that child. Do you consider these women "deadbeat Mom's"? Do you reserve the same kind of ire for them you do for the people that have suggested that men should be able to essentially do the same thing?

The reality is you were so quick to jump on the suggestion with your sexist hypersensitivity you didn't think things through and had to immediately begin back tracking and straw manning. I'll leave you to it. Effort...

RobertKK

efb wrote: »

I don't think the comparison is fair at all- very sensationilist

It is the truth http://www.dw.de/india-still-grappling-with-maternal-deaths/a-17631850

On average 45,000 Indian women die during or after child birth. The rate is about 200 women per 100,000.
The Irish rate is in single figures and lower than most western countries that permit abortion.

efb

RobertKK wrote: »

It is the truth http://www.dw.de/india-still-grappling-with-maternal-deaths/a-17631850

On average 45,000 Indian women die during or after child birth. The rate is about 200 women per 100,000.
The Irish rate is in single figures and lower than most western countries that permit abortion.

But higher that some western countries that permit abortions then

efb

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT

There is the full data

lazygal

RobertKK wrote: »

It is the truth http://www.dw.de/india-still-grappling-with-maternal-deaths/a-17631850

On average 45,000 Indian women die during or after child birth. The rate is about 200 women per 100,000.
The Irish rate is in single figures and lower than most western countries that permit abortion.

What would happen if women in Ireland weren't allowed to travel elsewhere to access abortion services? Would the abortion rate drop to near zero?

shruikan2553

RobertKK wrote: »

It is the truth http://www.dw.de/india-still-grappling-with-maternal-deaths/a-17631850

On average 45,000 Indian women die during or after child birth. The rate is about 200 women per 100,000.
The Irish rate is in single figures and lower than most western countries that permit abortion.

India isn't the bastion of medical care I was made to believe? Next you'll be telling us their trains get a bit crowded.

efb

The UK has a lower mortality rate than us

RobertKK

efb wrote: »

But higher that some western countries that permit abortions then

We are among the lowest in the world.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html

Sunnyisland

RobertKK wrote: »

It is the truth http://www.dw.de/india-still-grappling-with-maternal-deaths/a-17631850

On average 45,000 Indian women die during or after child birth. The rate is about 200 women per 100,000.
The Irish rate is in single figures and lower than most western countries that permit abortion.

Reading that link, the majority of deaths was suffering from a bloodstream infection, likely due to a bacterium acquired during the caesarian. Such infections, also known as sepsis, are more common in India than in the developed world and indicate poor quality of care.

Grayson

RobertKK wrote: »

It is the truth http://www.dw.de/india-still-grappling-with-maternal-deaths/a-17631850

On average 45,000 Indian women die during or after child birth. The rate is about 200 women per 100,000.
The Irish rate is in single figures and lower than most western countries that permit abortion.

just to add to that, the largest single killer of girls under the age of 21 is childbirth. That's globally, there may be a slight variation in certain countries. It's particularly bad in the third world.

That's why the Bill and Melinda gates foundation is doing so much to increase the knowledge of and availability of contraception. Educating girls about sex and reproduction can provide them with the ability to control their own fertility. Giving them access to contraception will also help this. Prevention is the best cure and although I'm pro choice I do think that stopping a pregnancy before it starts, through effective contraception, is better than abortion.

That's not to say that availability of abortion wouldn't help these women. Abortion is safer than childbirth for a teenage girl. Especially when it's drug induced at an early stage. Medical abortion is a bit of a moot point. If it's not possible to get condoms and other contraceptives to them it's probably not possible to get adequate facilities set up. that doesn't mean that hospitals shouldn't be set up with them.

RobertKK

efb wrote: »

The UK has a lower mortality rate than us

UK is higher than our mortality rate.

shruikan2553

realies wrote: »

Reading that link, the majority of deaths was suffering from a bloodstream infection, likely due to a bacterium acquired during the caesarian. Such infections, also known as sepsis, are more common in India than in the developed world and indicate poor quality of care.

No its abortions. Higher death rate + abortions? Must be abortions. The statistics match up perfectly. We should ban internet explorer while we're at it

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--VMdaBkt---/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/18calq4ybym0sjpg.jpg

RobertKK

realies wrote: »

Reading that link, the majority of deaths was suffering from a bloodstream infection, likely due to a bacterium acquired during the caesarian. Such infections, also known as sepsis, are more common in India than in the developed world and indicate poor quality of care.

The strain of infection that Savita had is common in India and some countries have issued to be aware of pregnant women who traveled to India or from India, given ESBL can be a problem, it has a mortality rate somewehre around 30%.

efb

RobertKK wrote: »

UK is higher than our mortality rate.

In 2013 our Rate is 9 there's is 8

Grayson

RobertKK wrote: »

UK is higher than our mortality rate.

Your both right.

the world bank says the UK is lower
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT

the CIA say Ireland is lower.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html

efb

Grayson wrote: »

Your both right.

the world bank says the UK is lower
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT

the CIA say Ireland is lower.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html

My data is more recent

RobertKK

Grayson wrote: »

Your both right.

the world bank says the UK is lower
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.STA.MMRT

the CIA say Ireland is lower.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html

efb wrote: »

My data is more recent

We can both be right, there is very little difference.

Grayson

efb wrote: »

My data is more recent

last year there were 10 cases of maternal mortality in the republic. If the number of cases dropped by a couple of a increased by a couple in an increase can drastically change the stats.

That's not to say that every case is bad. each of those was a woman dying. And cases like Savita's where there was an almighty fcukup shouldn't happen. there's still a lot of room for improvement. I just mean that when it's that small statistics can be a bit weird.

topper75

What's going on here in AH?

Surely post #8 should have been #2 and then a mod should have just locked it in #3?

OldNotWIse

realies wrote: »

It is quite embarrassing in this day and age that women still have to hide and go in secret to a another country in regards to contraception, unbelievable really.

I think you are confused as to the difference between contraception and abortion. Nobody in Ireland has to "go in secret" to another country to get contraceptives.

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

We can both be right, there is very little difference.

It's now accepted that the stats in Ireland on maternal mortality rates have been severely under reported, partly die to methodological flaws. More recent statistics should be better but are still not directly comparable to international statistics, because some cases that are reported as maternal deaths in the UK and elsewhere are not classified as such by Irish coroners.

It seems probable that the "increase" recently is due to media attention preventing such deaths going unreported, not to a real increase.

Fuhrer

Ive only been skim reading this thread, whats the general consensus of when its still ok to kill the baby?

Inside the body, good?
Outside the body, bad?

SeanW

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's why advocates of 'paper abortions for men' tie themselves up in knots trying to argue that a man should be allowed to abdicate his responsibility towards a child he doesn't want, while at the same time trying to maintain that this is a father's rights issue!

It's a bit like saying "Well she wanted to have the child, I didn't, so now I have no responsibility for that child". Their attitude doesn't negate the fact that a child now exists, and they have a duty towards that child. They can hardly argue father's rights while ignoring father's responsibilities.
...
The whole 'paper abortion for men' is nothing more than a poorly thought out specious strawman that always gets thrown in with abortion, that actually bears no similarity to abortion whatsoever, and is merely a poor attempt at so-called 'gender equality' for men.

1) According to some people (whether because of religious influence or otherwise) an unborn child is still a human being.

2) It is indeed an equal rights issue, because a no-abortion regime is equal - an unwanted pregnancy cannot be ended by either party, and everyone know where they stand before the fact. Where abortions are legalised, but there is no "paper abortion" procedure for the father, is when inequality arises.

Because under this case, in a questionable pregnancy the father has no say in his own future - if he is not able/willing to accept the responsibility of fatherhood, but the mother decides to have/keep the child, tough, he's on the hook. Likewise if the father wants the child, even being willing to raise it on his own, but the mother wants to walk away from the pregnancy immediately, again, sux 2 B him.

Under your "if the child happens to exist" standard, the only way to give the man to have any say in his own future in these cases were for him to be able to petition a court to force the mother to abort/carry the child in accordance with his plans for the future.

Since no one would seriously like that, an alternative standard is proposed.

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

Ive only been skim reading this thread, whats the general consensus of when its still ok to kill the baby?

Inside the body, good?
Outside the body, bad?

Babies are outside the body.
Foetuses are inside.
Happy to clarify.

That's why killing a foetus doesn't carry exactly the same penalty as killing a baby.

Fuhrer

SeanW wrote: »

1) According to some people (whether because of religious influence or otherwise) an unborn child is still a human being.

I think everyone agrees that an unborn child is a human being, people just disagree at what stage it is considered as such.

Fuhrer

lazygal wrote: »

Babies are outside the body.
Foetuses are inside.
Happy to clarify.

That's why killing a foetus doesn't carry exactly the same penalty as killing a baby.

I dont know what the law is in Ireland but killing a Fetus does carry the exact same penalty as killing a baby in Northern Ireland, life imprisonment.

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

I dont know what the law is in Ireland but killing a Fetus does carry the exact same penalty as killing a baby in Northern Ireland, life imprisonment.

But you can kill a foetus here if your life is at risk. Or you can bring it elsewhere to kill it. You can't be charged with murder for doing so. In fact there is a constitutional right to travel if you want to kill the unborn elsewhere, as well as information on killing the unborn. The same does not apply where people wish to kill a born baby.

You should listen back to a lady who wrote in to Ray Darcey. Her story of using unprescribed drugs to procure an abortion was horrifying. I hope none of those who took those tablets yesterday suffer any ill effects, though maybe if they did, they'd leave the prescribing of them to those who know what they're doing and can offer follow up support.

Fuhrer

lazygal wrote: »

But you can kill a foetus here if your life is at risk. Or you can bring it elsewhere to kill it. You can't be charged with murder for doing so. In fact there is a constitutional right to travel if you want to kill the unborn elsewhere, as well as information on killing the unborn. The same does not apply where people wish to kill a born baby.

What point are you trying to make? You cant be charged with any murder that doesnt happen within a jurisdiction.


If I travel to England to shoot someone in the head, I wont be charged with murder back in Ireland.

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

What point are you trying to make? You cant be charged with any murder that doesnt happen within a jurisdiction.


If I travel to England to shoot someone in the head, I wont be charged with murder back in Ireland.

But if your purpose is to travel elsewhere to take your own life or to abuse a born child you can be prevented from travelling. Why do we allow women to kill the unborn elsewhere but make it an offence here? Therefore we distinguish between the born and a foetus all the time.

lazygal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You should listen back to a lady who wrote in to Ray Darcey. Her story of using unprescribed drugs to procure an abortion was horrifying. I hope none of those who took those tablets yesterday suffer any ill effects, though maybe if they did, they'd leave the prescribing of them to those who know what they're doing and can offer follow up support.

Exactly why abortion should be safe and legal, at as early a stage as possible.

eviltwin

Fuhrer wrote: »

What point are you trying to make? You cant be charged with any murder that doesnt happen within a jurisdiction.


If I travel to England to shoot someone in the head, I wont be charged with murder back in Ireland.

If you walk into a garda station and admit to killing someone in the UK they will most likely restrain you and check it out. If you tell them the killing took place in an abortion clinic the only charge you will face is wasting their time.

Fuhrer

lazygal wrote: »

But if your purpose is to travel elsewhere to take your own life or to abuse a born child you can be prevented from travelling. Why do we allow women to kill the unborn elsewhere but make it an offence here? Therefore we distinguish between the born and a foetus all the time.

Better standards here I suppose.


At what point should we be allowed to kill the fetus?

If someone walks up to a woman on her way to the hospital and hammer fists her in the gut killing the baby, is that just assault? Or murder?

eviltwin

Deleted User wrote: »

You should listen back to a lady who wrote in to Ray Darcey. Her story of using unprescribed drugs to procure an abortion was horrifying. I hope none of those who took those tablets yesterday suffer any ill effects, though maybe if they did, they'd leave the prescribing of them to those who know what they're doing and can offer follow up support.

She didn't take the abortion pill. She took medication for arthritis in a large dose to induce a miscarriage. Its not the same as the abortion pill which was designed for that specific purpose.

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

Better standards here I suppose.


At what point should we be allowed to kill the fetus?

If someone walks up to a woman on her way to the hospital and hammer fists her in the gut killing the baby, is that just assault? Or murder?

Would the assailant be charged with murder? Do you think women should be prevented from travelling to kill the unborn?

Fuhrer

lazygal wrote: »

Would the assailant be charged with murder? Do you think women should be prevented from travelling to kill the unborn?

Dont answer my question with a question, its a cowards answer.


Do you think the situation I described before is murder?

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

Dont answer my question with a question, its a cowards answer.


Do you think the situation I described before is murder?

What stage of gestation? We don't record foetuses who die before 24 weeks the same as those who die after 24 weeks.
Maybe you can answer my question. Should women be allowed to bring unborn children to be killed elsewhere?