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…5681011…44

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »
    Murder is killing someone against their will. A foetus doesn't have a will because its brain hasn't developed yet, you need a conscience to have a will to live. "Abortion is murder" is just sensationalist drivel, the foetus won't even feel any pain.

    Neither would a person strapped to a large bomb.

    So its ok to kill once there is no pain.....


  • Options
    #213
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Bruthal wrote: »
    Neither would a person strapped to a large bomb.

    Why is there a different charge for foeticide than murder? If I killed a foetus, I wouldn't be charged and convicted of murder, it would be a completely different offence.


  • Options
    #214
    Quazzie
    Registered Users Posts: 28,933 ✭✭✭✭Quazzie


    Its Only Ray Parlour wrote: »
    Murder is killing someone against their will. A foetus doesn't have a will because its brain hasn't developed yet, you need a conscience to have a will to live. "Abortion is murder" is just sensationalist drivel, the foetus won't even feel any pain.

    Since the child doesn't have a will to live, the child's will to live belongs to the parents, but since the mother is clinically dead, the family should decided want happens next.

    So if I arrange to kill someone that is about to kill suicide is that ok? Using your logic it is. Or is it ok to kill people with severe mental retardation who cannot make such a decision for themselves.

    They are killing their Grandchild and they should be ashamed of themselves.


  • Options
    #215
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Quazzie wrote: »
    So if I arrange to kill someone that is about to kill suicide is that ok? Using your logic it is. Or is it ok to kill people with severe mental retardation who cannot make such a decision for themselves.

    They are killing their Grandchild and they should be ashamed of themselves.[    /QUOTE]

    That is a vile thing to say to people who have lost their daughter already and now have to take on the state in court.


  • Options
    #216
    Quazzie
    Registered Users Posts: 28,933 ✭✭✭✭Quazzie


    lazygal wrote: »

    That is a vile thing to say to people who have lost their daughter already and now have to take on the state in court.

    I believe it to be the truth. Their own opinions give them no right to demand the death of their Grandchild.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Quazzie wrote: »
    I believe it to be the truth. Their own opinions give them no right to demand the death of their Grandchild.

    They are not demanding the death of anyone.
    They want to stop their daughter being kept alive artificially. It is a vile thing to accuse them of 'demanding the death' of a 17 week old foetus that doesn't have the ability to survive.


  • Options
    #218
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users Posts: 43,028 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    Where there is life there is hope


  • Options
    #219
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »
    Where there is life there is hope

    There is no life. The woman is dead.


  • Options
    #220
    Quazzie
    Registered Users Posts: 28,933 ✭✭✭✭Quazzie


    lazygal wrote: »
    There is no life. The woman is dead.

    Her child isn't. If it is, why does it still continue to grow?

    Things that are dead don't grow.


  • Options
    #221
    omerin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭omerin


    lazygal wrote: »
    Quazzie wrote: »
    So if I arrange to kill someone that is about to kill suicide is that ok? Using your logic it is. Or is it ok to kill people with severe mental retardation who cannot make such a decision for themselves.

    They are killing their Grandchild and they should be ashamed of themselves.[    /QUOTE]

    That is a vile thing to say to people who have lost their daughter already and now have to take on the state in court.


    This is the thing, why do they wish to lose their grandchild as well? Please can you provide a logical explanation?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    lazygal wrote: »
    Would the decision of the state have anything to do with the abortion laws in the country closest to us, where abortions can be carried out up to 24 weeks, do you think? Or is it a coincidence?
    My point is, a 1 day old fetus has the potential to become a child. It is alive. A states legal position of recognition for practical reasons, is separate.

    As in, a state doesnt issue birth certs for fetus below a certain term. But that means to some, that its ok to not give a live fetus at that stage any recognition as being a life, since the state doesnt issue birth certs at that stage.


  • Options
    #223
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Quazzie wrote: »
    Her child isn't. If it is, why does it still continue to grow?

    Things that are dead don't grow.

    It is not a child. It is a foetus. Your nails keep growing after you're dead, that doesn't mean you're alive.


  • Options
    #224
    RentDayBlues
    Registered Users Posts: 2,131 ✭✭✭RentDayBlues


    Quazzie wrote: »

    They are killing their Grandchild and they should be ashamed of themselves.

    You should be ashamed of yourself for saying this. They have lost their daughter and rather than being allowed to grief for the loss of their child they were faced with a horrendous decision: to allow her to pass on with dignity or to allow her dead body to be artificially maintained in the hope it allows their unborn grandchild to come to term.

    The chances of the second choice having a successful outcome is so slim. It prolongs the suffering of the deceased's family. If the baby was to be further developed then I'm sure the grandparents would have been very supportive of the hospital's stance but as it is that baby would not survive outside the womb.

    It's a very sad scenario for all involved, claiming they are murdering a baby is adding to that pain, shame on you


  • Options
    #225
    Quazzie
    Registered Users Posts: 28,933 ✭✭✭✭Quazzie


    lazygal wrote: »
    It is not a child. It is a foetus. Your nails keep growing after you're dead, that doesn't mean you're alive.

    So you are equating an unborn child to fingernails. :confused:


  • Options
    #226
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Bruthal wrote: »
    My point is, a 1 day old fetus has the potential to become a child. It is alive. A states legal position of recognition for practical reasons, is separate.

    As in, a state doesnt issue birth certs for fetus below a certain term. But that means to some, that its ok to not give a live fetus at that stage any recognition as being a life, since the state doesnt issue birth certs at that stage.

    In Ireland, we protect the unborn, and the constitution makes no reference to pre or post 24 weeks gestation, but the state has decided to. Do you think child benefit should be paid from conception? With modern scanning its easy to figure out gestation very accurately. My last period had the potential to be a child, why doesn't the state recognise that? What about all the frozen embryos from IVF, should the state recognise them and vindicate their right to life?


  • Options
    #227
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    lazygal wrote: »
    They are not demanding the death of anyone.
    They want to stop their daughter being kept alive artificially. It is a vile thing to accuse them of 'demanding the death' of a 17 week old foetus that doesn't have the ability to survive.

    If the fetus would or could survive, do you think they should try?

    Or should just let die, because the state says its not a child?

    What if it was at 30 weeks or similar?


  • Options
    #228
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Quazzie wrote: »
    So you are equating an unborn child to fingernails. :confused:

    No, I'm saying that just because something is growing doesn't mean its alive. When you reach your maximum height as an adult and stop growing, it doesn't mean you're dead.


  • Options
    #229
    Quazzie
    Registered Users Posts: 28,933 ✭✭✭✭Quazzie


    RentDayBlues wrote: »
    You should be ashamed of yourself for saying this. They have lost their daughter and rather than being allowed to grief for the loss of their child they were faced with a horrendous decision: to allow her to pass on with dignity or to allow her dead body to be artificially maintained in the hope it allows their unborn grandchild to come to term.

    The chances of the second choice having a successful outcome is so slim. It prolongs the suffering of the deceased's family. If the baby was to be further developed then I'm sure the grandparents would have been very supportive of the hospital's stance but as it is that baby would not survive outside the womb.

    It's a very sad scenario for all involved, claiming they are murdering a baby is adding to that pain, shame on you

    If i lost my daughter, but had a chance to save my Grandshild I would move heaven and earth to make it happen. Instead the parents are bringing up a case to make the opposite happen. It's unfathomable and disgusting.


  • Options
    #230
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Bruthal wrote: »
    If the fetus would or could survive, do you think they should try?

    Or should just let die, because the state says its not a child?

    What if it was at 30 weeks or similar?

    30 weeks is an entirely different kettle of fish. Is it ok to keep a dead woman alive for months to gestate a foetus? Suppose she was a week pregnant, how long should she be artificially sustained for the sole purposes of gestation?


  • Options
    #231
    Quazzie
    Registered Users Posts: 28,933 ✭✭✭✭Quazzie


    lazygal wrote: »
    30 weeks is an entirely different kettle of fish. Is it ok to keep a dead woman alive for months to gestate a foetus? Suppose she was a week pregnant, how long should she be artificially sustained for the sole purposes of gestation?

    She should be kept alive as long as their is hope of the child surviving. To do otherwise denting the child a chance to life and is murder.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    lazygal wrote: »
    No, I'm saying that just because something is growing doesn't mean its alive.
    Quazzie wrote: »
    It's unfathomable and disgusting.

    Not everybody by any means sees a foetus as deserving of full human rights, and I am neither disgusted nor do I find their decision unfathomable. That said, I disagree with lazygal in that I know the foetus is most definitely alive. Whether that life is so important it deserves more consideration than the dignity that should be given to a woman carrying it who has died already, is a decision only for her next of kin and the next of kin of the foetus (if they differ dramatically).


  • Options
    #233
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    lazygal wrote: »
    Do you think child benefit should be paid from conception?
    Absolutely irrelevant, again. That has absolutely nothing to do with what a life consists of.
    My last period had the potential to be a child
    So it was developing and growing was it?
    why doesn't the state recognise that?
    Again, what life consists of, which no one on earth fully understands, is not decided by any state. All they decide is, whats practical to recognise. Just because they dont issue birth certs to 1 day old fetus`s, doesnt mean they are not alive.
    What about all the frozen embryos from IVF, should the state recognise them and vindicate their right to life?
    I dont think we are actually discussing what the state should or should not recognise.


  • Options
    #234
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Bruthal wrote: »
    Absolutely irrelevant, again. That has absolutely nothing to do with what a life consists of.


    So it was developing and growing was it?


    Again, try to see that what life consists of, which no one on earth fully understands, is not decided by any state. All they decide is, whats practical to recognise. Just because they dont issue birth certs to 1 day old fetus`s, doesnt mean they are not alive.


    I dont think we are actually discussing what the state should or should not recognise.


    Yes we are. The state gives equal status to the woman as to a one day old foetus. If it didn't, doctors would make decisions based on clinical judgment and not supreme court rulings.


  • Options
    #235
    DM addict
    Registered Users Posts: 567 ✭✭✭DM addict


    Shrap wrote: »
    Whether that life is so important it deserves more consideration than the dignity that should be given to a woman carrying it who has died already, is a decision only for her next of kin and the next of kin of the foetus (if they differ dramatically).

    This. Despite our numerous and passionate opinions, this isn't or decision. Nor is it the State's decision. It should be up to the family.

    The issue is that they have expressed their wishes and are being ignored.


  • Options
    #236
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    lazygal wrote: »
    No, I'm saying that just because something is growing doesn't mean its alive.
    Well, you give us an example of any fetus that was dead, that became a healthy child.
    When you reach your maximum height as an adult and stop growing, it doesn't mean you're dead.
    Utter crap nonsense.


  • Options
    #237
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    Bruthal wrote: »
    I dont think we are actually discussing what the state should or should not recognise.

    Oh, I think we actually are. Or are there not posts here discussing whether the wishes of the next of kin should be paramount to the life of a 16 week old foetus? Perhaps I am mistook and read them wrong.....


  • Options
    #238
    Ihatecuddles
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,986 ✭✭✭Ihatecuddles


    lazygal wrote: »
    It is not a child. It is a foetus. Your nails keep growing after you're dead, that doesn't mean you're alive.

    No they don't.


  • Options
    #239
    Shrap
    Registered Users Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    Ihatecuddles wrote: »
    No they don't.

    Yes, yes they do. I know that's a bit "ew", but they do, and so does hair. It's to do with the stored energy in the body.


  • Options
    #240
    Kermit.de.frog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,669 ✭✭✭✭Kermit.de.frog


    I guess this means on Tuesday the state has to give free legal aid and legal representation for the woman's fetus.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    Quazzie
    Registered Users Posts: 28,933 ✭✭✭✭Quazzie


    Kermit.de.frog wrote: »
    I guess this means on Tuesday the state has to give free legal aid and legal representation for the woman's fetus.

    Yes it's unfortunate that someone wants to attack it, but that is indeed the case so it is the state's prerogative to protect it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement