Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

Baggy Trousers

lazygal wrote: »

I have no issue with those who call themselves pro life (whatever that is supposed to mean. I have a serious issue with those who call themselves pro life constantly claiming that they serve the interests of the 'unborn' in some way. They don't. They simply ignore the fact that thousands of 'babies' are brought to the UK and other countries, for reasons ranging from fatal foetal abnormality to socio economic difficulties to rape and everything else in between. I have a serious issue with the pro life 'solution' to every single pregnancy, which is to remain pregnant regardless of any other considerations to the contrary. I have a serious issue with the pro life 'adoption solution' for women who do not wish to remain pregnant.
I couldn't give a fiddlers what label posters put on themselves. What I do give a fiddlers about is the fact that 30 odd years ago the government was browbeaten by pro life people like you into a referendum that has caused 14 year old rape victims to be brought before the high court, that has forced an asylum seeker to remain pregnant and that forces women in Ireland carrying 'babies' with no brains to seek medical treatment elsewhere.
I'm sick and tired of labels. I'm sick and tired of the pro life brigade claiming some smug moral superiority while not actually wanting to do anything about the fact that the 'babies' they supposedly care so much about are brought away to be killed by the thousand. I'm sick and tired of other people being allowed to tell me what I can and can't do with the contents of my uterus.
Defend those who cannot defend themselves? Really? How exactly are you doing that, when thousands of defenceless babies are brought away to be killed? What does defending the defenceless even mean?

Excellent post lazygal. To be honest I often witness false empathy and caring on both sides of the debate but most especially on the pro-life side for obvious reasons i.e. they want 'life' at all costs but don't really want to debate the repercussions of that life.

lazygal

opiniated wrote: »

I've made no claim to serve the interests of the unborn. I have no power or means to do so.

I most certainly have not claimed, that the "solution" to this pregnancy was to remain pregnant, regardless of any other considerations. (Though, ironically, that is what actually happened!)

I most certainly have not claimed any moral superiority, much less a "smug" moral superiority. I merely mentioned that pro-life people were not the heartless monsters that they are sometimes accused of being.

As to defending those who cannot defend themselves.
That's simple enough.

It means countering the belief, held by some people, that an unborn baby should have no rights. I don't, and never will, believe that is the case. Just because the unborn cannot speak for themselves does not mean the cannot think, or feel.
For example, what if this case involved a woman who was at 30 weeks gestation? Should life support be turned off if the family wanted it? What if the baby was within 3 days of being viable and healthy?

Just removing the eighth amendment will not change hard cases in the future - it will only remove the rights of viable babies, in favour of whatever doctors or relatives feel is the right decision at the time.

So what exactly does defending the defenceless mean? Do you think the rights to travel and information should be repealed? Does it bother you that the rights of the unborn cease when women bring them abroad to kill them?

opiniated

lazygal wrote: »

So what exactly does defending the defenceless mean? Do you think the rights to travel and information should be repealed? Does it bother you that the rights of the unborn cease when women bring them abroad to kill them?

Defending the defenceless just means trying to consider their needs/rights/feelings.

No, I do not feel the right to travel and information should be repealed. i voted for it.
Yes, it bothers me that the rights of the unborn cease when people bring them abroad. That, however, is outside of my control.
I cannot, and will not, deny people the right to travel or information.
Where I draw the line is giving approval to what I consider wrong.

So, what is legal in other jurisdictions, I have no control over. Nor do I have, or want, control over peoples morals or choices.

What I cannot, in conscience, do, is vote to approve what I consider wrong. So, I would vote pro-life in any other referendum - but I don't judge people who have different views. I just answer for my own views - and act accordingly.

lazygal

opiniated wrote: »

Defending the defenceless just means trying to consider their needs/rights/feelings.

No, I do not feel the right to travel and information should be repealed. i voted for it.
Yes, it bothers me that the rights of the unborn cease when people bring them abroad. That, however, is outside of my control.
I cannot, and will not, deny people the right to travel or information.
Where I draw the line is giving approval to what I consider wrong.

So, what is legal in other jurisdictions, I have no control over. Nor do I have, or want, control over peoples morals or choices.

What I cannot, in conscience, do, is vote to approve what I consider wrong. So, I would vote pro-life in any other referendum - but I don't judge people who have different views. I just answer for my own views - and act accordingly.

We have laws to prevent people traveling for other reasons, even if what they intend to do is legal in another state. Should we stop women traveling to kill the unborn? You don't seem to do a whole lot to help the unborn apart from feeling empathy.

JRant

opiniated wrote: »

Defending the defenceless just means trying to consider their needs/rights/feelings.

No, I do not feel the right to travel and information should be repealed. i voted for it.
Yes, it bothers me that the rights of the unborn cease when people bring them abroad. That, however, is outside of my control.
I cannot, and will not, deny people the right to travel or information.
Where I draw the line is giving approval to what I consider wrong.

So, what is legal in other jurisdictions, I have no control over. Nor do I have, or want, control over peoples morals or choices.

What I cannot, in conscience, do, is vote to approve what I consider wrong. So, I would vote pro-life in any other referendum - but I don't judge people who have different views. I just answer for my own views - and act accordingly.

You most certainly do want to control over people's choices and morals though.

If you don't like abortion then don't have one, simples.

What gives you the right to detrmine if someone else should have one or not?

Defending the defenseless! That's just another way to say you can't keep your nose out of others business.

Can you give one single example of how a stranger having an abortion affects you in any way at?

conorh91

lazygal wrote: »

30 odd years ago the government was browbeaten by pro life people like you into a referendum that has caused 14 year old rape victims to be brought before the high court, that has forced an asylum seeker to remain pregnan

There is substantial ambiguity regarding Miss Y's case, and whether or not Article 40.3.3° was at all relevant. There appear to be grounds to indicate that a charity may have been at fault in its advice. Miss Y is widely seen as having been eligible for an abortion, and the agency at question has never claimed that it was confused in this regard.

There are similar doubts regarding whether Article 40.3.3° was engaged in the case of Savita Halappanavar. It appears to be a medical negligence case, since Savita Halappanavar appears to have been entitled to a termination.

The circumstances leading up to the X case were indeed a colossal failure, although it should be said that X was granted the right to a termination.

JRant

conorh91 wrote: »

There is substantial ambiguity regarding Miss Y's case, and whether or not Article 40.3.3° was at all relevant. There appear to be grounds to indicate that a charity may have been at fault in its advice. Miss Y is widely seen as having been eligible for an abortion, and the agency at question has never claimed that it was confused in this regard.

There are similar doubts regarding whether Article 40.3.3° was engaged in the case of Savita Halappanavar. It appears to be a medical negligence case, since Savita Halappanavar appears to have been entitled to a termination.

The circumstances leading up to the X case were indeed a colossal failure, although it should be said that X was granted the right to a termination.

??
Was she not granted the right to travel?

Magenta

opiniated wrote: »

However, I find it quite horrifying that some pro-choice posters consider that pro-life supporters are unfeeling, cruel, monsters.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Most pro-life people I know just want to defend those who cannot defend themselves, ie, the unborn.
It's an admirable attribute, imo, and I don't believe all pro-life people deserve the level of vitriol that is sometimes directed at them on boards.

For a start- while standing still at a protest, pro-lifers- those empathetic creatures of wonder- have done the following to me and my friends:

• Thrown holy water in my face
• Told a pro-choice girl she is "too fat to get pregnant anyway"
• Had "you are going to hell" shouted in my face

Besides all that.....
Pro-lifers are obsessed with the foetus. Their purpose is to force women to give birth no matter what the consequences are.

• Victim of rape? Tough luck, you're giving birth.
• Foetus has fatal abnormalities? Tough luck, you're giving birth.
• Your miscarriage is killing you? Tough luck, you're giving birth.
• Contraceptive didn't work? Tough luck, you're giving birth.

Pro lifers stand shouting at women entering abortion clinics despite the fact they have NO idea of the individual reasons why that woman is seeking an abortion. Disgusting behaviour. Funny how you all care so much about a foetus but couldn't give a crap about the woman carrying it.

bodice ripper

bogwalrus wrote: »

Am I right in saying some people here believe a brain dead woman whose body is artificially being kept alive is a living person with the same rights as any other living person?

So conversely, is a fetus without brain activity not yet alive? Bitta consistency like .

ProfessorPlum

conorh91 wrote: »

There is substantial ambiguity regarding Miss Y's case, and whether or not Article 40.3.3° was at all relevant. There appear to be grounds to indicate that a charity may have been at fault in its advice. Miss Y is widely seen as having been eligible for an abortion, and the agency at question has never claimed that it was confused in this regard.

There are similar doubts regarding whether Article 40.3.3° was engaged in the case of Savita Halappanavar. It appears to be a medical negligence case, since Savita Halappanavar appears to have been entitled to a termination.

The circumstances leading up to the X case were indeed a colossal failure, although it should be said that X was granted the right to a termination.

So it's clear to see that Article 40.3.3 is a poorly written piece, leading to confusion and ambiguity, and doing absolutely nothing to improve the rights of women, and after this latest fiasco, one could certainly argue unborn children, in this country.

conorh91

JRant wrote: »

??
Was she not granted the right to travel?

Who, X?

The Supreme Court decided that X had the right to an abortion (whether in Ireland or elsewhere) and she had the right to travel.

In Miss Y's case, no application to travel abroad was ever made, in what seems to have been an almighty cock-up by the IFPA.

Since this case is now concluded, and the thread descended into an abortion debate, I think we'll leave it here.