Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

Options
1…1213151718…44

Comments

  • Options
    #422
    JONJO THE MISER
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 12,333 ✭✭✭✭JONJO THE MISER


    If he/she is born, what will they think if they view this thread in 20 years time.


  • Options
    #423
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    Has he spoken out on this matter?

    Maybe he wants to retain his privacy. He does not have to expose himself to the vultures in the media. For all we know, one minute himself and the lady are excited and happily pregnant and the next the pro abortion campaign are gnashing their teeth to use his partner as a poster girl for their campaign.

    I wouldn't go public either.

    We haven't heard anything about or from him and already the rumors are flying.


  • Options
    #424
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    bjork wrote: »
    Maybe he wants to retain his privacy. He does not have to expose himself to the vultures in the media. For all we know, one minute himself and the lady are excited and happily pregnant and the next the pro abortion campaign are gnashing their teeth to use his partner as a poster girl for their campaign.

    I wouldn't go public either.

    Could well be. Could be he doesn't care. Could be he doesn't know.

    But in the absence of any info on his wishes, bemoaning the trampling of his rights seems premature.


  • Options
    #425
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    Could well be. Could be he doesn't care. Could be he doesn't know.

    But in the absence of any info on his wishes, bemoaning the trampling of his rights seems premature.

    I didn't "bemoan the trampling of his rights"?


  • Options
    #426
    Smidge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Smidge


    JONJO THE MISER wrote: »
    If he/she is born, what will they think if they view this thread in 20 years time.

    More pertinent would be if they are born HEALTHY.
    People seem to think that a dead womans corpse will suffice as an incubator to bring a foetus to full gestation with no complications for the foetus.

    At 30 weeks? Maybe
    From 16 weeks?? I would be utterly amazed if there were no complications.

    But even leaving that aside and saying that it was born healthy.
    What then?
    The grandparents have their hands full and already have the daughters older child to rear into their old age. And this is even without knowing their situation(they could be very aged, or ill or poor. We dont know)

    So the child goes into care.
    It will later in life find out the whole tale in all its gory details.
    Will it thanks us for giving it(I use it as gender is unknown)life in care/foster homes?
    Will it thanks us for the knowledge that it was the child who wasn't "taken" by the grandparents and wonder why they were not as loved as the sibling kept by them?
    Will it thanks us for bringing it into the world where she would never know her mother?

    I highly doubt it.

    Don't be under the illusion that we would be saving this child for THIS CHILDS sakes.
    We wouldn't be.
    The pro life side would be saving a foetus for THEIR cause.
    They wouldn't be saving a child though.
    They would save the foetus at the risk of ruining the CHILDS life.
    All to appeal to their own moral needs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #427
    bogwalrus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,454 ✭✭✭bogwalrus


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    That's the one.

    Bacteria are alive.

    A Fetus will be a human if it is not one already. Bacteria will not be a human and a fetus is not bacteria.

    Some massive difference there. A fetus has the right to have a future. And you disagree with that because?


  • Options
    #428
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    bjork wrote: »
    I didn't "bemoan the trampling of his rights"?

    But Spanish eyes did.


  • Options
    #429
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    bogwalrus wrote: »
    A Fetus will be a human if it is not one already. Bacteria will not be a human and a fetus is not bacteria.

    Some massive difference there. A fetus has the right to have a future. And you disagree with that because?

    Sperm could be a human being. Given the right technology, any human cell could be. So what?

    You can't prove something by just saying it over and over again.


  • Options
    #430
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    But Spanish eyes did.

    Dead lady>grandparents>child>father


    Have I got that order of Rights correct there?


    Regardless of "Rights privilege" It will be decided by the courts. I don't think there is a need to take the default position that he doesn't care .(If he didn't know before, he figured it out since I would imagine). Have you any links to the whole aspect of the father is not around or the grandparents are raising all children, because I haven't seen it mentioned on any mainstream news source only on discussion boards by the curtain twitchers who the reported facts just don't cut the grade for and they have to add "a little extra gossip". Perhaps I've missed it, but spreading rumors and judging this lady, her partner and their relationship just seems a bit sick to me, when none of us know the facts.

    I don't think there is a need for it.


  • Options
    #431
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    JONJO THE MISER wrote: »
    Baby at 17 weeks in the womb.
    http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-development-images-17-weeks

    Can hear and move all its joints.
    Sorry, that is not a 17 week old baby, this is:

    332348.jpg

    It even has a sign.

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #432
    Smidge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Smidge


    bjork wrote: »
    Dead lady>grandparents>child>father


    Have I got that order of Rights correct there?


    Regardless of "Rights privilege" It will be decided by the courts. I don't think there is a need to take the default position that he doesn't care .(If he didn't know before, he figured it out since I would imagine). Have you any links to the whole aspect of the father is not around or the grandparents are raising all children, because I haven't seen it mentioned on any mainstream news source only on discussion boards by the curtain twitchers who the reported facts just don't cut the grade for and they have to add "a little extra gossip". Perhaps I've missed it, but spreading rumors and judging this lady, her partner and their relationship just seems a bit sick to me, when none of us know the facts.

    I don't think there is a need for it.


    You seem to be arguing against you own point here.
    The information came into the public domain and therefore its being discussed.
    It was stated (by the news iirc)that the grandparents are currently caring for the womans child.
    We dont know if the father of the child is the father of the foetus.
    What we do know is that they were not married and therefore the grandparents in the eyes of the law are next of kin.


  • Options
    #433
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    bjork wrote: »
    Dead lady>grandparents>child>father


    Have I got that order of Rights correct there?


    Regardless of "Rights privilege" It will be decided by the courts. I don't think there is a need to take the default position that he doesn't care .(If he didn't know before, he figured it out since I would imagine). Have you any links to the whole aspect of the father is not around or the grandparents are raising all children, because I haven't seen it mentioned on any mainstream news source only on discussion boards by the curtain twitchers who the reported facts just don't cut the grade for and they have to add "a little extra gossip". Perhaps I've missed it, but spreading rumors and judging this lady, her partner and their relationship just seems a bit sick to me, when none of us know the facts.

    I don't think there is a need for it.


    I didn't do any of that, but thanks anyway. I believe there some conjecture from you about his situation first, I only pointed out there were other scenarios.

    But please, go ape**** if it makes you happy.


  • Options
    #434
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    Smidge wrote: »
    You seem to be arguing against you own point here.
    The information came into the public domain and therefore its being discussed.
    It was stated (by the news iirc)that the grandparents are currently caring for the womans child.
    We dont know if the father of the child is the father of the foetus.
    What we do know is that they were not married and therefore the grandparents in the eyes of the law are next of kin.

    What news? Can you link it?


  • Options
    #435
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    bogwalrus wrote: »
    Yes she is and has her child still growing in her that the parents are choosing to terminate by pulling the plug but are being prevented by medical professionals for some reason (i presume because they believe the child can survive).
    I am pretty sure the medics have said the foetus is unlikely to survive. This is happening not be used the medics believe the end result will be a healthy baby, they are doing it because they are scared of the consequences of not doing it due to the idiotic laws they are operating under. Even if they were 100% certain the baby would not survive art 40.3.3 means they have to continue with this goulish and cruel 'treatment'.

    MrP


  • Options
    #436
    Smidge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Smidge


    bjork wrote: »
    What news? Can you link it?

    I'm sure if you have a wee google there you'll find it (News as in THE NEWS thats broadcast on the tellyvision :rolleyes:)


  • Options
    #437
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    Smidge wrote: »
    I'm sure if you have a wee google there you'll find it (News as in THE NEWS thats broadcast on the tellyvision :rolleyes:)

    Yes, I've googled it on on no mainstream news source can I find this information. Surely you can link a source. Or is it gossip and rumours?


    Should be so easy to link to.


  • Options
    #438
    Neyite
    Administrators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,947 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Neyite


    bogwalrus wrote: »
    Yes she is and has her child still growing in her that the parents are choosing to terminate by pulling the plug but are being prevented by medical professionals for some reason (i presume because they believe the child can survive).

    The question is, is it right to pull the plug when there is a possibility this child will survive and if so what is the justification for doing so?

    Medical experts have agreed that there is an extremely poor outcome for the baby as a best case scenario they expect severe health issues and abnormalities, that is if the pregnancy does not result in a miscarriage or stillbirth, or death shortly after birth. The outcome of a healthy baby is not expected.
    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Where is Dad?

    UH, I forgot, he is not married to the woman, so has no rights at all in this matter.

    That is not right IMV

    He's been quoted in The Independent as being of the same mind as his partners parents and is supporting their high court bid. But you are correct, in this state it doesn't matter a jot what he thinks. Neither, it appears does it matter what the mother would have thought either. The 8th amendment says so.

    ETA: sorry, I just re-read the article. It was the woman's father, not the father of the children. It was incorrectly linked on another forum.


  • Options
    #439
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/i-just-want-to-lay-my-poor-little-girl-to-rest-30851665.html


  • Options
    #440
    bogwalrus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,454 ✭✭✭bogwalrus


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I am pretty sure the medics have said the foetus is unlikely to survive. This is happening not be used the medics believe the end result will be a healthy baby, they are doing it because they are scared of the consequences of not doing it due to the idiotic laws they are operating under. Even if they were 100% certain the baby would not survive art 40.3.3 means they have to continue with this goulish and cruel 'treatment'.

    MrP

    Well there it is so. No reason whatsoever to keep the woman on life support if the baby has no chance. But still the question stands on whether it would have been right if the child did have a significant chance.


  • Options
    #441
    bogwalrus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,454 ✭✭✭bogwalrus


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    Sperm could be a human being. Given the right technology, any human cell could be. So what?

    You can't prove something by just saying it over and over again.

    Sperm can't be a human being. I'm starting to think your just trolling now.

    And what am I saying over and over. It's a discussion is it not? Leave the anger at the door and we can progress our discussion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #442
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    bogwalrus wrote: »
    Sperm can't be a human being. I'm starting to think your just trolling now.

    And what am I saying over and over. It's a discussion is it not? Leave the anger at the door and we can progress our discussion.

    I am not trolling. I dont believe potential to be a human being equals human being.

    you just keep saying fetus has a right to life. You back it with little substance.

    And I am always angry.


  • Options
    #443
    scottp68877
    Registered Users Posts: 214 ✭✭scottp68877


    I may be wrong here but where on that article does it say that the woman is clinically dead? It says that she's on life support after a brain trauma but that's it?


  • Options
    #444
    Lingua Franca
    Registered Users Posts: 2,800 ✭✭✭Lingua Franca


    In that article? If you mean the one in the OP then nowhere. That was a breaking news story with no detail. In every other article since it has said she is confirmed as brain dead. If they turn the machines off she will expire. That's not up for debate.


  • Options
    #445
    cloudatlas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,709 ✭✭✭cloudatlas


    MrPudding wrote: »
    I am pretty sure the medics have said the foetus is unlikely to survive. This is happening not be used the medics believe the end result will be a healthy baby, they are doing it because they are scared of the consequences of not doing it due to the idiotic laws they are operating under. Even if they were 100% certain the baby would not survive art 40.3.3 means they have to continue with this goulish and cruel 'treatment'.

    MrP

    If it had a viable chance at life would it change your mind? The only moral case that is close to this paradigm is the surrogacy cases where financial coercion is judged to be an abuse of power over the rightful mothers claim but since the mother is absent and there is little financial incentive as the state will take responsibility for the child then there is little argument in that particular vein.


  • Options
    #446
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    Smidge wrote: »
    I'm sure if you have a wee google there you'll find it (News as in THE NEWS thats broadcast on the tellyvision :rolleyes:)

    Still no link from a main stream news source?


    As if this family haven't enough to content with without people making sh1t up and spreading it around the internet as fact. Gossipy curtain twitchers who need to add their spin on to the version of events.


  • Options
    #447
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    cloudatlas wrote: »
    If it had a viable chance at life would it change your mind?
    No.

    MrP


  • Options
    #448
    bogwalrus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,454 ✭✭✭bogwalrus


    bodice ripper wrote: »
    I am not trolling. I dont believe potential to be a human being equals human being.

    you just keep saying fetus has a right to life. You back it with little substance.

    And I am always angry.

    So if you were an artist with the potential to becoming a great artist but someone took that opportunity away from you. Is that right?

    You accuse me of not having enough substance to back up my opinion. I already told you my opinion is that a fetus should be allowed become a human unless there is a very good reason why it should not.


  • Options
    #449
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,611 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    bogwalrus wrote: »
    I already told you my opinion is that a fetus should be allowed become a human unless there is a very good reason why it should not.
    Dead mother doesn't qualify as a very good reason?


  • Options
    #450
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    bogwalrus wrote: »
    So if you were an artist with the potential to becoming a great artist but someone took that opportunity away from you. Is that right?

    You accuse me of not having enough substance to back up my opinion. I already told you my opinion is that a fetus should be allowed become a human unless there is a very good reason why it should not.


    It may well have happened to me, who can be sure? But I was a thinking, feeling, sentient being when it happened, if it happened.

    and if you are going to infringe on the rights of a human female who is actually here, you need a better argument than "prove why not".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #451
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,978 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    bogwalrus wrote: »
    So if you were an artist with the potential to becoming a great artist but someone took that opportunity away from you. Is that right?

    You accuse me of not having enough substance to back up my opinion. I already told you my opinion is that a fetus should be allowed become a human unless there is a very good reason why it should not.

    Had things gone differently in the past, my mother might never have met my father and I would never have been born. Would suck but there are infinitely more scenarios where a particular sperm/egg combo doesn't get the opportunity of life than does. What's important is that we respect the rights of people who do exist.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement