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

volchitsa

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Is self awareness a good boundary line,?i am fairly certain new born babies aren't considered self aware by some, pain response for all its faults is at least measurable (and then u get into the response/perception argument). Also its a fetus till birth, embryo what you mean?

I don't think a boundary line was being suggested, it was just a reply to the poster who talked about the fetus' "feelings" taking precedence over the mother's wishes. Because fetuses obviously don't have "feelings".

Pumpkinseeds

Fuhrer wrote: »

This is such a strange position that so many people take.

You say that its always a womans right to choose what to do with her body but you limit your abortions to 12 weeks.

Why 12 weeks? Why the cut off? If you believe that no one should force a woman to not abort a baby, what magical thing happens after 12 weeks that stops you from holding that position?

Interesting question from someone with your username. I say 12 weeks as there has to be some cut off point.

Fuhrer

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Interesting question from someone with your username. I say 12 weeks as there has to be some cut off point.

But why does there have to be a cut off point?


If a woman should be allowed to have an abortion if its her choice, why shouldn't she be allowed to have it the day before she is due to deliver the baby?

shruikan2553

Fuhrer wrote: »

But why does there have to be a cut off point?


If a woman should be allowed to have an abortion if its her choice, why shouldn't she be allowed to have it the day before she is due to deliver the baby?

They tend to deliver the baby at that point.

Fuhrer

shruikan2553 wrote: »

They tend to deliver the baby at that point.

Not if its aborted first.

shruikan2553

Fuhrer wrote: »

Not if its aborted first.

1 day before the due date? Its called inducing labour or c section. The point is to end the pregnancy, not to "murder" as some people try to claim.

Fuhrer

shruikan2553 wrote: »

1 day before the due date? Its called inducing labour or c section. The point is to end the pregnancy, not to "murder" as some people try to claim.

No, that would be delivering the baby, im talking about what volchitsa wants to be able to do, abort at any time for whatever reason.

One day later, a living human being
One day previous, a fetus fee to be aborted

Im sure you can see why some people find the line being thrown out by some of the lower common dominators on here to be quite morally and ethically repulsive

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

No, that would be delivering the baby, im talking about what volchitsa wants to be able to do, abort at any time for whatever reason.

One day later, a living human being
One day previous, a fetus fee to be aborted

Im sure you can see why some people find the line being thrown out by some of the lower common dominators on here to be quite morally and ethically repulsive

My pregnancies were ended by c section. Why would a doctor stop the heart of a foetus one day before a due date instead of induce delivery? Ms Y had to deliver her baby alive.

Fuhrer

lazygal wrote: »

My pregnancies were ended by c section. Why would a doctor stop the heart of a foetus one day before a due date instead of induce delivery? Ms Y had to deliver her baby alive.

Because its a womans choice what to do with her body isnt it?

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

Because its a womans choice what to do with her body isnt it?

Yes. I chose to deliver my second child by section. No doctor would have agreed to stop the heartbeat and deliver a dead foetus at that point though. As we know Ms Y had to deliver a live foetus as her desire to terminate the pregnancy was facilitated by early delivery via c section. Do you think she should have been forced to go full term?.

Fuhrer

lazygal wrote: »

Yes. I chose to deliver my second child by section. No doctor would have agreed to stop the heartbeat and deliver a dead foetus at that point though. As we know Ms Y had to deliver a live foetus as her desire to terminate the pregnancy was facilitated by early delivery via c section. Do you think she should have been forced to go full term?.

Again, you're completely missing the point. What does early delivery have to do with aborting a baby?


You think you should be able to terminate a baby that can be delivered safely and healthily early by c section?

The point I'm making is trying to see if you distinguish between what someone called a fetus and living human being.

You said no doctor would agree to stop the heart beat, presumably you agree with that stance? That it would be wrong to stop the heartbeat?

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

Again, you're completely missing the point. What does early delivery have to do with aborting a baby?


You think you should be able to terminate a baby that can be delivered safely and healthily early by c section?

The point I'm making is trying to see if you distinguish between what someone called a fetus and living human being.

You said no doctor would agree to stop the heart beat, presumably you agree with that stance? That it would be wrong to stop the heartbeat?

At viability doctors in Ireland would deliver the foetus alive and treat it accordingly. That's the law, both patients are treated. Before viability maybe women like Ms Y, whose lives are at risk, would be treated differently. Do you know the law here at all? The foetus has the same right to life as the woman so would be delivered alive. Unless the woman brings it elsewhere to be aborted, in which case the foetus has no right to life.

lazygal

Termination of pregnancy is not automatically abortion. Natural miscarriage is referred to as spontaneous abortion. My pregnancies were both terminated by c section. Both my children were delivered alive, despite the termination of the pregnancies.

shruikan2553

Fuhrer wrote: »

Again, you're completely missing the point. What does early delivery have to do with aborting a baby?


You think you should be able to terminate a baby that can be delivered safely and healthily early by c section?

The point I'm making is trying to see if you distinguish between what someone called a fetus and living human being.

You said no doctor would agree to stop the heart beat, presumably you agree with that stance? That it would be wrong to stop the heartbeat?

You seem to be ignoring bits that don't go along your path to the point you are attempting to make.

Most countries have laws in place to control this sort of thing. You have until X weeks to choose for an abortion for whatever reason. This is when the vast majority are done. Then after that point you can have an abortion for certain reasons such as health risks to the mother, problems with fetus etc, once the fetus can survive outside of the womb they tend to give birth.

Fuhrer

lazygal wrote: »

At viability doctors in Ireland would deliver the foetus alive and treat it accordingly. That's the law, both patients are treated. Before viability maybe women like Ms Y, whose lives are at risk, would be treated differently. Do you know the law here at all? The foetus has the same right to life as the woman so would be delivered alive. Unless the woman brings it elsewhere to be aborted, in which case the foetus has no right to life.

And you think this is right or wrong?


That the law protects the life of a viable fetus?


I'm trying to genuinely know, because earlier all you would say that its a womans right to choose, without ever specifying anything about if the fetus had any right to life at all, I think you described it as a parasite at one stage.

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

No, that would be delivering the baby, im talking about what volchitsa wants to be able to do, abort at any time for whatever reason.

One day later, a living human being
One day previous, a fetus fee to be aborted

Im sure you can see why some people find the line being thrown out by some of the lower common dominators on here to be quite morally and ethically repulsive

You'll have a quote from me saying that, I presume?

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

And you think this is right or wrong?


That the law protects the life of a viable fetus?


I'm trying to genuinely know, because earlier all you would say that its a womans right to choose, without ever specifying anything about if the fetus had any right to life at all, I think you described it as a parasite at one stage.

No I never used the term parasite.
Do you think people who think access to abortion should be made legal in Ireland would prefer babies like that delivered in the Ms Y case be born dead? Because I don't wish the baby dead. I wish women could have abortions as early as possible before decisions about viability force them to give birth to children they don't want. If a woman wants an abortion it should be a decision between her and her doctor and no one else.

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

You'll have a quote from me saying that, I presume?

I put the question directly and give you amble opportunity to refute that position but you utterly refused to and started some inane whining session about having your feelings hurt and demanding an apology.

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

I put the question directly and give you amble opportunity to refute that position but you utterly refused to and started some inane whining session about having your feelings hurt and demanding an apology.

So I didn't say it. You're lying.

Fuhrer

lazygal wrote: »

No I never used the term parasite.
Do you think people who think access to abortion should be made legal in Ireland would prefer babies like that delivered in the Ms Y case be born dead? Because I don't wish the baby dead. I wish women could have abortions as early as possible before decisions about viability force them to give birth to children they don't want. If a woman wants an abortion it should be a decision between her and her doctor and no one else.

Yeah, sorry. That was someone else who said that.


I'm trying to interrupt your last statement, you say your preference is for early abortions before viability is an issue. However implied in that statement is also the implication that you think that is the best case scenario, that if a woman wants to terminate a fully gestated fetus, with only days or weeks to go that the only thing stopping her from doing it is a willing doctor?

One eyed Jack

Fuhrer wrote: »

And you think this is right or wrong?


That the law protects the life of a viable fetus?


I'm trying to genuinely know, because earlier all you would say that its a womans right to choose, without ever specifying anything about if the fetus had any right to life at all, I think you described it as a parasite at one stage.

That wasn't lazygal.

The thing about this issue is that a pregnant woman, if she is determined to, will terminate her pregnancy by whatever means possible, regardless of what the law says about the right to life of the unborn child.

If there were a way that abortion weren't necessary, I think that's what everyone wants, but that's completely unrealistic, and so instead of a woman putting two lives in danger to terminate her pregnancy, by far the more humane thing to do is to allow her to end one life as safely for herself as possible, while giving due diligence and respect to the unborn child inside her, in an effort to reduce the traumatic effects of abortion on both human beings.

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

Yeah, sorry. That was someone else who said that.


I'm trying to interrupt your last statement, you say your preference is for early abortions before viability is an issue. However implied in that statement is also the implication that you think that is the best case scenario, that if a woman wants to terminate a fully gestated fetus, with only days or weeks to go that the only thing stopping her from doing it is a willing doctor?

No there is no such implication. A foetus at the point of viability should be delivered alive unless to do so would threaten the health or life of the woman. Such cases are a tiny percentage of terminations and most countries have laws in place to deal with late term abortion.

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

So I didn't say it. You're lying.

I asked you a very simple question, you read it, understood it and then refused to answer it. It can only be assumed by reasonable people that if it wasnt true you would refute the statement.

So lets try again,

you think a woman should be able to terminate a baby at any time she wants for whatever reason?

Fuhrer

lazygal wrote: »

No there is no such implication. A foetus at the point of viability should be delivered alive unless to do so would threaten the health or life of the woman. Such cases are a tiny percentage of terminations and most countries have laws in place to deal with late term abortion.

So, ok. We've finally reached some consensus then.


Its not always just a womans choice, the rights of the baby have to be taken into consideration as well.

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

I asked you a very simple question, you read it, understood it and then refused to answer it. It can only be assumed by reasonable people that if it wasnt true you would refute the statement.

So lets try again,

you think a woman should be able to terminate a baby at any time she wants for whatever reason?

Do you think termination of pregnancy is always an abortion? Because it isn't. Pregnancies are terminated and babies delivered alive at various stages of gestation every day throughout the country.

Fuhrer

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think termination of pregnancy is always an abortion? Because it isn't. Pregnancies are terminated and babies delivered alive at various stages of gestation every day throughout the country.

Termination of Pregnancy and Abortion are synonymous medical terms.

Here, look it up.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Abortion/Pages/Introduction.aspx

If its a matter of opinion, ill take the NHS opinion over yours about it ever time and im sure everyone else would.

CruelCoin

Lapin wrote: »

hundreds of thousands of young women over the years while they travelled abroad for terminations.

God damn!

So much punamy and i got none of it....

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

I asked you a very simple question, you read it, understood it and then refused to answer it. It can only be assumed by reasonable people that if it wasnt true you would refute the statement.

So lets try again,

you think a woman should be able to terminate a baby at any time she wants for whatever reason?

Terminate a baby? No. Never.

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

Termination of Pregnancy and Abortion are synonymous medical terms.

Here, look it up.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Abortion/Pages/Introduction.aspx

If its a matter of opinion, ill take the NHS opinion over yours about it ever time and im sure everyone else would.

Which if correct of course means that Miss Y did not have a termination of pregnancy under the terms of the Protection of Life during pregnancy Act.
Agreed?

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

Which if correct of course means that Miss Y did not have a termination of pregnancy under the terms of the Protection of Life during pregnancy Act.
Agreed?

What does that have to do with anything I posted?

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

Terminate a baby? No. Never.

So, for the third time asking, you refused to answer the question.

I dont think anyone would think it is unfair to say you support abortions at any time for any reason given that you were asked the question repeatedly and refused to answer.

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

What does that have to do with anything I posted?

It's relevant to the question of whether or not a termination of pregnancy is necessarily considered to be an abortion in Ireland, since she was evaluated as entitled to a termination of pregnancy under the terms of the act.

I don't know whether she got the termination or not, because I tend to agree with you that the usual meaning is as an abortion, but I have seen it claimed that she did.

It may not matter to you, but if we are discussing the exact meaning of a word, how else are we to decide other than by looking at how the word is used? It's what you did with the NHS, so are you saying that how the word is used in Irish legislation is less significant on an Irish message board than how it is used in the UK?

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

So, for the third time asking, you refused to answer the question.

I dont think anyone would think it is unfair to say you support abortions at any time for any reason given that you were asked the question repeatedly and refused to answer.

No, rubbish. I have refused to get into your stupid mind games. Not the same thing at all.

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

It's relevant to the question of whether or not a termination of pregnancy is necessarily considered to be an abortion in Ireland, since she was evaluated as entitled to a termination of pregnancy under the terms of the act.

I don't know whether she got the termination or not, because I tend to agree with you that the usual meaning is as an abortion, but I have seen it claimed that she did.

It may not matter to you, but if we are discussing the exact meaning of a word, how else are we to decide other than by looking at how the word is used? It's what you did with the NHS, so are you saying that how the word is used in Irish legislation is less significant on an Irish message board than how it is used in the UK?

The baby was delivered by C Section I thought, no?

I don't think anyone would classify a c section as an abortion, at least no one I've ever heard talk about it. They're trying to save the baby doing that, not kill it. The exact opposite of an abortion I'm sure you'd agree.

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

No, rubbish. I have refused to get into your stupid mind games. Not the same thing at all.

My mind games involve asking you to specify the details of this position you apparently hold and are strongly advocating.

How when a person asked to clarify a position can describe that as mind games is beyond me. This is literally, a case of life and death and you flippantly refuse to even discuss the most basic conditions on which any new law will have to address.

shruikan2553

Fuhrer wrote: »

The baby was delivered by C Section I thought, no?

I don't think anyone would classify a c section as an abortion, at least no one I've ever heard talk about it. They're trying to save the baby doing that, not kill it. The exact opposite of an abortion I'm sure you'd agree.

Nope, the point is to end the pregnancy. Its just that at different terms it might not be viable.

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

The baby was delivered by C Section I thought, no?

I don't think anyone would classify a c section as an abortion, at least no one I've ever heard talk about it. They're trying to save the baby doing that, not kill it. The exact opposite of an abortion I'm sure you'd agree.

Termination of pregnancy, was the question. You said, and it's true, that the NHS appears to use the term as synonymous with an abortion, ie the baby dies. Lazygal says a termination of pregnancy isn't necessarily an abortion, it can be any artifical ending of a pregnancy, including where the baby is born alive. You disagreed. Didn't you?

Now you say that a C-section isn't an abortion, but for Miss Y it was indeed a termination of her pregnancy, by a c-section. How else could it have been terminated? Natural birth?

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

My mind games involve asking you to specify the details of this position you apparently hold and are strongly advocating.

How when a person asked to clarify a position can describe that as mind games is beyond me. This is literally, a case of life and death and you flippantly refuse to even discuss the most basic conditions on which any new law will have to address.

Because I actually joined in to give my opinion. I didn't set it out fully (but why should I, it would be extremely boring for all concerned if posters did that), but I was certainly giving my views on the question.

You ignored that and went off on a rant about a later post from me, while at the same time complaining about me joining into a conversation uninvited. So since I had given my opinion, and you weren't interested in it, I'm not going to do it now just because you've decided you're entitled to dictate how and what I may say.

That is what I mean by mind games. Confirmed by your immediate decision that by not doing as you decreed, I had made some sort of declaration by default. Utter nonsense.

Whereas if you were being honest, and had just missed that post, you would have accepted that and apologized when I pointed it out to you.

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

Termination of pregnancy, was the question. You said, and it's true, that the NHS appears to use the term as synonymous with an abortion, ie the baby dies. Lazygal says a termination of pregnancy isn't necessarily an abortion, it can be any artifical ending of a pregnancy, including where the baby is born alive. You disagreed. Didn't you?

Now you say that a C-section isn't an abortion, but for Miss Y it was indeed a termination of her pregnancy, by a c-section. How else could it have been terminated? Natural birth?

This really isn't a matter of opinion is it? A termination is universally referred to as when the fetus is miscarried or intentionally miscarried

If we're talking about the medical term, Termination of Pregnancy is a medically directed miscarriage though surgical of pharmacological means.

Miss Ys baby was delivered alive was it not? Thats not a termination of pregnancy, thats inducing pregnancy.

shruikan2553

Fuhrer wrote: »

This really isn't a matter of opinion is it? A termination is universally referred to as when the fetus is miscarried or intentionally miscarried

If we're talking about the medical term, Termination of Pregnancy is a medically directed miscarriage though surgical of pharmacological means.

Miss Ys baby was delivered alive was it not? Thats not a termination of pregnancy, thats inducing pregnancy.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terminate

Replace terminate with end. This isnt a film about time traveling robots.

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

Because I actually joined in to give my opinion. I didn't set it out fully (but why should I, it would be extremely boring for all concerned if posters did that), but I was certainly giving my views on the question.

You ignored that and went off on a rant about a later post from me, while at the same time complaining about me joining into a conversation uninvited. So since I had given my opinion, and you weren't interested in it, I'm not going to do it now just because you've decided you're entitled to dictate how and what I may say.

That is what I mean by mind games. Confirmed by your immediate decision that by not doing as you decreed, I had made some sort of declaration by default. Utter nonsense.

Whereas if you were being honest, and had just missed that post, you would have accepted that and apologized when I pointed it out to you.

More "oh why my whining" and utter dishonesty from you.

By the time I had read your posts and responded to them, you were ranting and raving about some Nazi Pro Life conspiracy going on.

And then complaining again about being me dictating your views completely missing the point(Or just choosing to gloss over it because you dont have a leg to stand on) where you had already done it to me without a shred of irony.

You're delusions and self pity are redundant, as are your half thought out opinions.

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

This really isn't a matter of opinion is it? A termination is universally referred to as when the fetus is miscarried or intentionally miscarried

If we're talking about the medical term, Termination of Pregnancy is a medically directed miscarriage though surgical of pharmacological means.

Miss Ys baby was delivered alive was it not? Thats not a termination of pregnancy, thats inducing pregnancy.

I don't know, if so she will presumably be entitled to major compensation because the psychiatrists she saw said that she did come under the terms of the POLDP Act, so if it wasn't triggered there is a huge legal problem. There seems to be an argument being made that she did, because the draft guidelines originally said that a live birth would not come under the terms of the Act, but the final version doesn't specify.

So it seems as though, in Ireland,a decision has been made to consider that live births brought about to save the mother's life are still "terminations of pregnancy". Which is what lazygal was saying. Can a single country rewrite international definitions? I guess they can. So in Ireland, Lazygal is right. It appears.

Fuhrer

shruikan2553 wrote: »

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terminate

Replace terminate with end. This isnt a film about time traveling robots.

No, we're talking about a very specific medical term.

http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/termination-of-pregnancy

A medically relevant link. Go nuts.

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

More "oh why my whining" and utter dishonesty from you.

By the time I had read your posts and responded to them, you were ranting and raving about some Nazi Pro Life conspiracy going on.

And then complaining again about being me dictating your views completely missing the point(Or just choosing to gloss over it because you dont have a leg to stand on) where you had already done it to me without a shred of irony.

You're delusions and self pity are redundant, as are your half thought out opinions.

Well don't bother replying to me then, I can live with that.

You're just angry coz you made a fool of yourself just now.

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't know, if so she will presumably be entitled to major compensation because the psychiatrists she saw said that she did come under the terms of the POLDP Act, so if it wasn't triggered there is a huge legal problem. There seems to be an argument being made that she did, because the draft guidelines originally said that a live birth would not come under the terms of the Act, but the final version doesn't specify.

So it seems as though, in Ireland,a decision has been made to consider that live births brought about to save the mother's life are still "terminations of pregnancy". Which is what lazygal was saying. Can a single country rewrite international definitions? I guess they can. So in Ireland, Lazygal is right. It appears.

Show me this decision that has been made to consider that live births brought about to save the mother's life are still "terminations of pregnancy".

The court refused her the right to terminate the pregnancy, the exact opposite of what you said happened.

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

Well don't bother replying to me then, I can live with that.

You're just angry coz you made a fool of yourself just now.

"I know you are but what am I!"


Jesus wept.

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

Show me this decision that has been made to consider that live births brought about to save the mother's life are still "terminations of pregnancy".

The court refused her the right to terminate the pregnancy, the exact opposite of what you said happened.

You don't have a clue, do you? The court wasn't involved in taking the decision. The HSE went to court to ask for the right to forcibly hydrate, but that was a separate issue. The only people who decided whether or not she should have a termination of pregnancy under the terms of the POLDP Act were the three members of the panel, two psychiatrists and an obstetrician. And they agreed that she should. The only question was how to achieve that, since the obstetrician felt that by that stage the baby could be delivered alive.

So assuming she did have a termination, as the law required, then a termination of pregnancy, in Ireland, means any premature artificial ending of a pregnancy, including cesarean section.

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

Show me this decision that has been made to consider that live births brought about to save the mother's life are still "terminations of pregnancy".

The court refused her the right to terminate the pregnancy, the exact opposite of what you said happened.

There was no court involved. Her case was decided by clinicians. You're misrepresenting what happened and I think you should correct this.

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

You don't have a clue, do you? The court wasn't involved in taking the decision. The HSE went to court to ask for the right to forcibly hydrate, but that was a separate issue. The only people who decided whether or not she should have a termination of pregnancy under the terms of the POLDP Act were the three members of the panel, two psychiatrists and an obstetrician. And they agreed that she should. The only question was how to achieve that, since the obstetrician felt that by that stage the baby could be delivered alive.

So assuming she did have a termination, as the law required, then a termination of pregnancy, in Ireland, means any premature artificial ending of a pregnancy, including cesarean section.

I dont have a clue?

Thats rich coming from you, "She didnt have the termination as the law required"

Here is a copy of the law

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2013/en.act.2013.0035.pdf

Show me where in this law; that you state requires her to have a termination, it even mentions the word termination let alone the term you two were insisting was now changed "Termination of Pregnancy"

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

I dont have a clue?

Thats rich coming from you, "She didnt have the termination as the law required"

Here is a copy of the law

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2013/en.act.2013.0035.pdf

Show me where in this law; that you state requires her to have a termination, it even mentions the word termination let alone the term you two were insisting was now changed "Termination of Pregnancy"

Show me the relevant information on the court case which refused to grant ms y a termination of pregnancy.