Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

My name is URL

Shrap wrote: »

I would like to add that despite all the abortions worldwide, there is no shortage of humans. Anywhere.

That's a stupid argument to say the least.

There's a big shortage of young people in many countries around the world, Ireland included.

It's almost at crisis point in terms of aging populations in a lot of places.

Shrap

conorh91 wrote: »

If the unborn is not viable, she may be allowed die by turning off the mother's artificial ventilation, depending on the opinion of the medics and the family.

Well that's the whole point, and is why people are talking about the right to life of the foetus. Under the 8th amendment of the constitution, the doctors can't make that call while the foetus lives, even if it's not viable. It comes down to the fact that the constitution regards the life of a foetus a human life that is worth turning a dead woman into a life-support machine for, against the wishes of her family. Whatever it's viability.

BarneyThomas

I imagine if there is a child at the end of this that it will be held up as the poster child (and a very potent image at that) for right to life campaigners.

I think all the voices against giving it a chance are more worried about the damage that this will do to their voices and arguments than they are about the brain dead mothers rights.

And look at the exposure already. This is going to go through the stratosphere if a child is born.

conorh91

Shrap wrote: »

Well that's the whole point, and is why people are talking about the right to life of the foetus. Under the 8th amendment of the constitution, the doctors can't make that call while the foetus lives, even if it's not viable. It comes down to the fact that the constitution regards the life of a foetus a human life that is worth turning a dead woman into a life-support machine for, against the wishes of her family. Whatever it's viability.

The 8th amendment is absolutely irrelevant.

The foetus had a right to life prior to the 8th amendment.

The 8th amendment merely elevated the unborn's right to life as equal to the mother's right to life.

But since the mother is dead in the first place, and has no personal rights, the foetus would have a right to life whether the 8th amendment existed or it did not.

Shrap

My name is URL wrote: »

That's a stupid argument to say the least.

That was not an argument. That was a fact.

If your argument for compelling all pregnant women to remain pregnant against their will is that Ireland has a shortage of young people (most of whom have moved to Oz or Canada due to the shortage of opportunities for them here), then I consider that to be a very stupid argument also.

Its Only Ray Parlour

BarneyThomas wrote: »

So that chance should be ignored and a child will never live?

You do realise that fetous might be in the womb for at least 37 weeks to avoid disabilities? 21 weeks is a big ask and no child should be born with a disability, it's cruel to allow that to happen.

MrPudding

BarneyThomas wrote: »

So that chance should be ignored and a child will never live?

In my job i am quite close to many situations which involved terminations and have seen the people involved in the weeks, months and even years after such an event.

While I have seen many women glad that they had a termination in the weeks, months and a few years after it.

I have never met any woman who has terminated a pregnancy who is glad they did it, reflecting after several years.

And I have never met any woman who has thought about terminating, but not terminated who has gone on to regret that decision.

There is no adult life here to be concerned about. So it comes down to if you feel that a brain dead womans rights and dignity are more important than giving an unborn child every chance that you would give a living human to prosper.

This isn't an abortion. It is a corpse being used as an incubator against the wishes of the next of kin. I am sorry, but I do not follow the 'life at any cost, irrespective of the quality' line. The idea that a child that will know only suffering and pain should be born simply because it is life is repulsive and disgusting.

MrP

Shrap

conorh91 wrote: »

The 8th amendment is absolutely irrelevant.

The foetus had a right to life prior to the 8th amendment.

The 8th amendment merely elevated the unborn's right right equal to the mother's right to life.

But since the mother is dead and has no personal rights, the foetus would have a right to life whether the 8th amendment existed or it did not.

The 8th amendment is the only place in the constitution where the right to life of "the unborn" is set out. Whether the mother is alive or dead, it seems. Hence the ethical problems in turning off the life-support machine.

BarneyThomas

Imagine if this child gets to be born and grow up.
It gathers all of the posts in this thread and the millions of other posts and newspapers all around the world.
Prints them all out and "These are all the people who wanted me dead. Im glad the rest of you didnt help them to kill me" That will be string stuff from a cute 10 year old.

Shrap

BarneyThomas wrote: »

I think all the voices against giving it a chance are more worried about the damage that this will do to their voices and arguments than they are about the brain dead mothers rights.

Bull. The horror of what that poor dead woman's family are going through is the ONLY thing I'm concerned about here.

conorh91

Shrap wrote: »

The 8th amendment is the only place in the constitution where "the unborn" right to life is stated.

Of course it is.

But the Supreme Court recognized the right to life of the unborn a number of times, before 1983. It is a personal right and like so many of the personal rights, is not actually written down anywhere. It exists between the lines, according to the Supreme Court.

Most people who criticise the 8th amendment don't seem to understand the 8th amendment.

the 8th amendment may have elevated the personal right to life of the foetus as being on par with the mother, but it did not create the right to life of the foetus. That right was acknowledged as early as 1974, perhaps earlier.

So the foetus would have had this personal right if this case had arisen in the 1970s.

The mother is dead. The 8th amendment does not come into play.

bogwalrus

MrPudding wrote: »

Women being in control of their own reproductive organs, be that in the form of contraception or abortion, is widely considered to be a massive factor in helping developing societies provide enough food water and shelter for its citizens. This is why bodies like the UN, and other NGOs that don't have a religious axe to grind, are fighting for stronger reproductive rights for women. Of course they are being fought by despicable organisation like the catholic church.

I am all for sexual education and access to contraception but are you saying here that we need to have abortions to be able to provide sufficient food and water to the people? As in justifying abortion because there is a population problem?

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't have access to a 'roll eye' emoticon big enough for this...
MrP

lol I know it was a bit sci-fi. The point I was trying to make is that you are giving total control to women over decisions that should be made by society.

We don't live in a society where we can do what we want with our bodies without consequence. I cant just pick up an axe and start murdering people without there being consequences.

A woman's body is her body and I do feel she should have the freedom to do what she wants with it but society has laws for what we should not do with our bodies and these laws should be there to better not just humanity but the future of humanity.

BarneyThomas

MrPudding wrote: »

This isn't an abortion. It is a corpse being used as an incubator against the wishes of the next of kin. I am sorry, but I do not follow the 'life at any cost, irrespective of the quality' line. The idea that a child that will know only suffering and pain should be born simply because it is life is repulsive and disgusting.

MrP

What rights does a "corpse" have?

You do not know that that child will only know suffering and pain. Do you?

Would you like to kill it if it does turn out to be suffering then, but only after you know that it wont be a happy ordinary child.

Shrap

conorh91 wrote: »

the 8th amendment may have elevated the personal right to life of the foetus as being on par with the mother, but it did not create the right to life of the foetus. That right was acknowledged as early as 1974, perhaps earlier.
.

So what? WE create the right to life of a foetus. WE (an awful lot of people of child-bearing age who never had a chance to have a say in it) would like to go back and say how we feel about it now. Which is differently.

Its Only Ray Parlour

BarneyThomas wrote: »

Imagine if this child gets to be born and grow up.
It gathers all of the posts in this thread and the millions of other posts and newspapers all around the world.
Prints them all out and "These are all the people who wanted me dead. Im glad the rest of you didnt help them to kill me" That will be string stuff from a cute 10 year old.

If that situation occurred, it's the fault of you and ilk. This thread exists because of you and your ilk. This shouldn't be a public decision, it should be a private matter between the family and it they who should decide whether the foetus lives or not.

BarneyThomas

Shrap wrote: »

Bull. The horror of what that poor dead woman's family are going through is the ONLY thing I'm concerned about here.

I doubt you are concerned about it at all.

conorh91

Shrap wrote: »

So what? WE create the right to life of a foetus. WE (an awful lot of people of child-bearing age who never had a chance to have a say in it) would like to go back and say how we feel about it now. Which is differently.

So?

That has nothing to do with the case at hand.

I am simply clarifying the irrelevance of the 1983 amendment as regards the instant case. I really don't care whether people oppose the 8th amendment or not, because it doesn't make a difference here.

BarneyThomas

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

If that situation occurred, it's the fault of you and ilk. This thread exists because of you and your ilk. This shouldn't be a public decision, it should be a private matter between the family and it they who should decide whether the foetus lives or not.

What my ilk?

Its Only Ray Parlour

BarneyThomas wrote: »

What my ilk?

Your kind. Google it.

Shrap

bogwalrus wrote: »

The point I was trying to make is that you are giving total control to women over decisions that should be made by society.

OMG!! The horror of the idea!! :eek::eek::eek: Oh wait...... that's what already happens, except for those who can't afford to go abroad, or who aren't allowed because of travel restrictions. The fcuking hypocrisy is endless :mad:

I'm out of here before someone ties me down in case I get pregnant and might want to decide if that's ok with me. Jesus H. Effing Christ.

My name is URL

Shrap wrote: »

That was not an argument. That was a fact.

If your argument for compelling all pregnant women to remain pregnant against their will is that Ireland has a shortage of young people (most of whom have moved to Oz or Canada due to the shortage of opportunities for them here), then I consider that to be a very stupid argument also.

I'm not making that argument, you're the one that erroneously linked the two things, I merely pointed out the utter stupidity of doing so.

Population aging, Sub-replacement fertility and increased dependency ratios are serious problems that most of the developed world is facing.

I would like to add that despite all the abortions worldwide, there is no shortage of humans. Anywhere.

So again, a stupid, short-sighted and ultimately ignorant claim. 'Fact' my arse.

BarneyThomas

I agree that a woman should have a choice whether they live to regret or to be happy with their decision.
I do not agree that a dead woman can decide to terminate her pregnancy if it can be saved. Therefore we all know the only person that needs protecting here.

I can see the hard liners are coming out now because they are getting scared of what could happen here.
Let them just just live with what they tried to do, if you do see a happy child in a few months time.

Oh I hope this child makes it.

Shrap

Shrap wrote: »

Bull. The horror of what that poor dead woman's family are going through is the ONLY thing I'm concerned about here.

BarneyThomas wrote: »

I doubt you are concerned about it at all.

Listen up charmer. That is a step too far and I'm looking for you to retract that comment. How dare you, to fcuk?? :mad:

BarneyThomas

Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »

Your kind. Google it.

You know I didnt ask you the definition of ilk?

I asked you whats my ilk?

ProfessorPlum

conorh91 wrote: »

So?

That has nothing to do with the case at hand.

I am simply clarifying the irrelevance of the 1983 amendment as regards the instant case. I really don't care whether people oppose the 8th amendment or not, because it doesn't make a difference here.

Conor the legal department at Beaumont hospital and the HSE disagree with you. If the 8th amendment didn't exist, this unfortunate woman and her unborn would be dead and buried by now, and her family would be allowed to get on with grieving for them. The 8th challenges the state to preserve the life of the unborn as far as is practicable. That is the question facing the medics and the courts. Is it practicable to preserve the foetal life by sustaining this dead woman's vital organs.
Unfortunately, the 8th amendment has made this a legal decision instead of a medical one.

Shrap

My name is URL wrote: »

So again, a stupid, short-sighted and ultimately ignorant claim. 'Fact' my arse.

Are you genuinely saying that people should be producing more children? I'm astonished. Didn't think anyone thought that. Please excuse my ignorance in such weighty matters as under population and forgive me for only having 2 children....

conorh91

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Conor the legal department at Beaumont hospital and the HSE disagree with you. If the 8th amendment didn't exist, this unfortunate woman and her unborn would be dead and buried by now, and her family would be allowed to get on with grieving for them.

Says who?

Jurisprudence on the right to life of the unborn did not begin in 1983.

1983 elevated and clarified the foetal right to life. But it existed prior to that.

Every lawyer in the country is familiar with McGee v AG [1974] and G v An Bord Uachtala [1980], and the lawyers advising the HSE most certainly are too.

BarneyThomas

Shrap wrote: »

Listen up charmer. That is a step too far and I'm looking for you to retract that comment. How dare you, to fcuk?? :mad:

I think you should calm down tbh.
You are not making any sense in any of your posts.

My posts are basically taking the stance the the rights of an unborn child are more important than the rights of a dead person.

And that should a child appear in a few months that all those who wanted to deny it the chance to a life will regret it.

You are taking that far too personally. But I can see why you might to be fair. Because you will be one of those who comes out the other end of this who will have to try to forgive themselves when they look at hopefully a healthy child. Thats got to be hard now that its been pointed out. Think how hard it will be if it comes to pass.

This is where the consequences of actions on the unborn will be seen big time.
Im pretty sure it would cause a seismic shift should there be a referendum.
It has mad eme seriously think about any stance i might have had.

My name is URL

Shrap wrote: »

Are you genuinely saying that people should be producing more children?

I'm not, no. I couldn't care less how many sprogs you push out. Plenty of governments are implementing natalist policies for that very reason though.

I'm astonished. Didn't think anyone thought that. Please excuse my ignorance in such weighty matters as under population and forgive me for only having 2 children....

Would you like some wax for that cross you're bearing?

ProfessorPlum

BarneyThomas wrote: »

I agree that a woman should have a choice whether they live to regret or to be happy with their decision.
I do not agree that a dead woman can decide to terminate her pregnancy if it can be saved. Therefore we all know the only person that needs protecting here.

I can see the hard liners are coming out now because they are getting scared of what could happen here.
Let them just just live with what they tried to do, if you do see a happy child in a few months time.

Oh I hope this child makes it.

The point is that this child has about as much chance as a snowball in a very fiery place of 'making it'. Everyday that the mothers body is kept oxygenated and perfused is using a very valuable resource in our over stretched health system. Because of this, people who require that ICU bed are having their surgery cancelled. The rather conservative estimate of €2,500 a day that it costs to fund this care (and that is for the basics, not including treating the inevitable complications that have and will arise) could be better spent on care for others. We are not living in a vacuum. What we allocate to this situation, we are taking from another.