Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

I'll report where and when necessary.

Not much to respond to really.

My heels are well and truly dug in and no attempts from the abortion lobby will weaken my Life advocacy.

I'll take that to mean that you don't dispute my post then, i.e. that abortion (of any kind) is intention to act upon the foetus.

Black Menorca

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I'm just like you, I advocate abortion when the circumstances call for it.

And people accuse me of being obtuse.

Classic.

Black Menorca

Delirium wrote: »

I'll take that to mean that you don't dispute my post then, i.e. that abortion (of any kind) is intention to act upon the foetus.

Take it anyway you see fit.

You know where I stand on intent.

Timberrrrrrrr

Black Menorca wrote: »

And people accuse me of being obtuse.

Classic.

You say that the termination of a pregnancy y to save the mother's life is the right thing to do but claim that they are not targeting the foetus for death. If a doctor recommends a woman terminates pregnancy at 12 weeks how is this not the guaranteed death of the foetus when the youngest ever premature baby to live was 21 weeks?

Black Menorca

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You say that the termination of a pregnancy y to save the mother's life is the right thing to do but claim that they are not targeting the foetus for death. If a doctor recommends a woman terminates pregnancy at 12 weeks how is this not the guaranteed death of the foetus when the youngest ever premature baby to live was 21 weeks?

It's all about the intention of the termination.

A termination with the intention to save the mother's life that may have the unintended consequence of the subsequent death of the baby, it is justified.

A termination/abortion at 12 weeks for

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

Take it anyway you see fit.

You know where I stand on intent.

actually I don't as we don't have a mutual understanding of what intent is. Hence asking if you agreed (or not) with my post. but it seems that answer is going to appear so I'll park it for now.

Timberrrrrrrr

Black Menorca wrote: »

It's all about the intention of the termination.

A termination with the intention to save the mother's life that may have the unintended consequence of the subsequent death of the baby, it is justified.

A termination/abortion at 12 weeks for

But at 12 weeks that would be the exact thing that would happen, terminating at 12 weeks guarantees the death of the foetus so there is no unintentional consequences there is actual intentional killing of the foetus because there is no way it could survive.

Black Menorca

Delirium wrote: »

actually I don't as we don't have a mutual understanding of what intent is. Hence asking if you agreed (or not) with my post. but it seems that answer is going to appear so I'll park it for now.

Park away.

Black Menorca

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

But at 12 weeks that would be the exact thing that would happen, terminating at 12 weeks guarantees the death of the foetus so there is no unintentional consequences there is actual intentional killing of the foetus because there is no way it could survive.

Nope. The intention of the termination is to save the mother from a direct physical threat to her life.

MrPudding

Black Menorca wrote: »

Take it anyway you see fit.

You know where I stand on intent.

Yes. We know where you stand, in the wrong.

MrP

Penny Tration

Black Menorca wrote: »

Nope. The intention of the termination is to save the mother from a direct physical threat to her life.

The intent is to abort the foetus as a means of saving the woman's life.

There's no disputing that it's very obviously intended, since the woman would be consulted as to her wishes, and prep done for theatre. It's intended, it's planned and it's sometimes premeditated (in non emergency cases).

Black Menorca

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

The intent is to abort the foetus as a means of saving the woman's life.

There's no disputing that it's very obviously intended, since the woman would be consulted as to her wishes, and prep done for theatre. It's intended, it's planned and it's sometimes premeditated (in non emergency cases).

I disagree. But then again, I'm not surprised that the abortion lobby would try and twist an act of humanity in saving a mother's life into an attempt to justify intentionally killing unborn life on behalf of the abortion industry.

Penny Tration

Black Menorca wrote: »

I disagree. But then again, I'm not surprised that the abortion lobby would try and twist an act of humanity in saving a mother's life into an attempt to justify intentionally killing unborn life on behalf of the abortion industry.

Abortion lobby? Lol, okay dear.

Timberrrrrrrr

Black Menorca wrote: »

Nope. The intention of the termination is to save the mother from a direct physical threat to her life.

And to do that they have to intentionally kill the foetus as there is no hope of it surviving, any way you try to spin it it still boils down to the intentional killing of the 12 week old foetus as there is no chance it could survive outside of the womb.

Penny Tration

The intention is to abort the foetus.

The HOPE is for the woman to survive.

Black Menorca will deny that though, because it doesn't fit in with their pro-everybody-except-the-mother stance.

Timberrrrrrrr

Black Menorca wrote: »

I disagree. But then again, I'm not surprised that the abortion lobby would try and twist an act of humanity in saving a mother's life into an attempt to justify intentionally killing unborn life on behalf of the abortion industry.

Ok here's the steps

Woman is 12 weeks pregnant

Doctor says we need to terminate your pregnancy or you will die.

What are the odds of that foetus surviving outside of the womb and growing up to be a fully functioning adult?

Two Sheds

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ok here's the steps

Woman is 12 weeks pregnant

Doctor says we need to terminate your pregnancy or you will die.

What are the odds of that foetus surviving outside of the womb and growing up to be a fully functioning adult?

Under the law, the quality of intent is critical to every action.
If we wanted to ignore intent then almost every law would have to be rewritten.

You're on a cul-de-sac with your line of reasoning.

In Criminal Law the concept of criminal intent has been called mens rea, which refers to a criminal or wrongful purpose. If a person innocently causes harm, then she or he lacks mens rea and, under this concept, should not be criminally prosecuted.

Since doctors work within the law, their intent is crucially important, whatever the outcome. It may not always negate culpability but it will always be considered.

otpmb

So do the pro-life people on here believe that in the case of an ectopic pregnancy that the entire fallopian tube should be removed as opposed to removal of the embryo/foetus from the tube or use of abortion pills, as only the former would result in the indirect "unintentional" death of a embryo/foetus/baby?

Astrolabe

Black Menorca wrote: »

I don't do ducking and diving. Thats the job of the abortion lobby.

If a termination is the only option to save a mother life from a direct threat, then it is justifiable.

What threats do you refer to? Pregnancy itself is not a disease of any kind, and does not pose a threat to anyone's life. That is a myth perpetrated by pro-abortion activists. The HSE carried out an extremely painstaking study a couple of years back, and found no single case in the past 50 years (which was how far back they checked) where a woman was in any 'danger' from being pregnant...either from a real physical point of view or from the threat of suicide. Only two cases were found where women who were denied abortions killed themselves, but in both cases, serious mental illness had already been pre-diagnosed.

In relation to cancer etc, I speak with some authority: I have an incurable form of cancer, and gave birth last year to a very healthy baby, and I was then, and am now, otherwise healthy. I did a lot of research at the time, both through the internet and by consulting with obstetricians and oncologists in person, in case the pregnancy was somehow maximising the risk of my cancer spreading more rapidly etc...it wasn't. There is never any danger which could necessitate a woman having an abortion - it just isn't true! Please don't believe people who say this!

lazygal

Astrolabe wrote: »

What threats do you refer to? Pregnancy itself is not a disease of any kind, and does not pose a threat to anyone's life. That is a myth perpetrated by pro-abortion activists. The HSE carried out an extremely painstaking study a couple of years back, and found no single case in the past 50 years (which was how far back they checked) where a woman was in any 'danger' from being pregnant...either from a real physical point of view or from the threat of suicide. Only two cases were found where women who were denied abortions killed themselves, but in both cases, serious mental illness had already been pre-diagnosed.

In relation to cancer etc, I speak with some authority: I have an incurable form of cancer, and gave birth last year to a very healthy baby, and I was then, and am now, otherwise healthy. I did a lot of research at the time, both through the internet and by consulting with obstetricians and oncologists in person, in case the pregnancy was somehow maximising the risk of my cancer spreading more rapidly etc...it wasn't. There is never any danger which could necessitate a woman having an abortion - it just isn't true! Please don't believe people who say this!

This is completely incorrect. Some diseases only occur in pregnant women. I know someone who's still on steroids months after pregnancy because her pregnancy triggered a rare but specific to pregnant women disease. She chose to continue the pregnancy but other women diagnosed with it travel because it's a serious long term illness and they don't want to put their current children at risk of losing a parent because of pregnancy.
Ps can you link to the hse study. Why were26 life saving abortions carried out last year if pregnancy is never a risk to life? Or are you going to peddle the fiction that they weren't abortions but terminations?

otpmb

Astrolabe wrote: »

In relation to cancer etc, I speak with some authority: I have an incurable form of cancer, and gave birth last year to a very healthy baby, and I was then, and am now, otherwise healthy. I did a lot of research at the time, both through the internet and by consulting with obstetricians and oncologists in person, in case the pregnancy was somehow maximising the risk of my cancer spreading more rapidly etc...it wasn't. There is never any danger which could necessitate a woman having an abortion - it just isn't true! Please don't believe people who say this!

In relation to certain types of cancer, sometimes treatment requires chemotherapy/radiotherapy which harms or mutilates a foetus leading to the death of the foetus. No doctor will treat a pregnant woman with chemo or radiotherapy if it would mutilate the foetus, so in Ireland you have the option of continuing with the pregnancy, or going to England, having an abortion and then coming back to Ireland to receive treatment. Continuing with the pregnancy can cause cancer to spread more rapidly and cause the cancer could become untreatable by the end of the pregnancy.

Black Menorca

Astrolabe wrote: »

What threats do you refer to? Pregnancy itself is not a disease of any kind, and does not pose a threat to anyone's life. That is a myth perpetrated by pro-abortion activists. The HSE carried out an extremely painstaking study a couple of years back, and found no single case in the past 50 years (which was how far back they checked) where a woman was in any 'danger' from being pregnant...either from a real physical point of view or from the threat of suicide. Only two cases were found where women who were denied abortions killed themselves, but in both cases, serious mental illness had already been pre-diagnosed.

In relation to cancer etc, I speak with some authority: I have an incurable form of cancer, and gave birth last year to a very healthy baby, and I was then, and am now, otherwise healthy. I did a lot of research at the time, both through the internet and by consulting with obstetricians and oncologists in person, in case the pregnancy was somehow maximising the risk of my cancer spreading more rapidly etc...it wasn't. There is never any danger which could necessitate a woman having an abortion - it just isn't true! Please don't believe people who say this!

Thank you for posting this inspirational post and I'm delighted to hear about your successful pregnancy, despite the trials of your condition.

Though I'm not a medical expert, the condition I believe that necessitates a possible termination is an ectopic pregnancy.

I know of several mothers with cancer who delivered babies healthily for both mother and child.

Black Menorca

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

The intention is to abort the foetus.

The HOPE is for the woman to survive.

Black Menorca will deny that though, because it doesn't fit in with their pro-everybody-except-the-mother stance.

Disgusting comment.

Black Menorca

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ok here's the steps

Woman is 12 weeks pregnant

Doctor says we need to terminate your pregnancy or you will die.

What are the odds of that foetus surviving outside of the womb and growing up to be a fully functioning adult?

The intention is to save the mother's life, while sometimes that will lead to the unintentional death of her baby.

lazygal

Black Menorca wrote: »

The intention is to save the mother's life, while sometimes that will lead to the unintentional death of her baby.

How is terminating the pregnancy causing the unintended death of a 12 weeks foetus?

Two Sheds

otpmb wrote: »

So do the pro-life people on here believe that in the case of an ectopic pregnancy that the entire fallopian tube should be removed as opposed to removal of the embryo/foetus from the tube or use of abortion pills, as only the former would result in the indirect "unintentional" death of a embryo/foetus/baby?

Ectopic pregnancies are treated in a variety of ways -

Keyhole surgery (laparoscopy)
The surgeon can perform this procedure under general anaesthetic to examine the inside of the abdominal cavity and to remove the ectopic pregnancy. In some cases, it might be possible to remove the ectopic leaving the tube intact but if the ectopic is large, if the tube is badly damaged or if there is significant bleeding the tube and pregnancy will be removed together.
Abdominal surgery (laparotomy)
If the ectopic pregnancy has not been diagnosed soon enough or the woman presents with severe symptoms, then she may need open abdominal surgery to remove the ectopic. In this case, it is unlikely that the tube will be saved.
Treatment with Methotrexate
Methotrexate is a drug which is given in injection form to treat ectopic pregnancy, although it is not a suitable treatment in all cases. Regular monitoring with blood tests is required until the beta hCG levels fall to non-pregnant levels..

Ectopic Pregnancy Ireland

Timberrrrrrrr

Black Menorca wrote: »

The intention is to save the mother's life, while sometimes that will lead to the unintentional death of her baby.

You keep saying this but if you are terminating a 12 week pregnancy their is only going to ever be one outcome.

otpmb

Two Sheds wrote: »

Ectopic pregnancies are treated in a variety of ways -

Ectopic Pregnancy Ireland

I know, do you believe the use of abortion pills or removal of an embryo from the fallopian tube should not be used to treat ectopic pregnancies as they directly target the foetus as opposed to complete removal of a fallopian tube where the foetus/baby dies indirectly due to the removal of the tube?

Black Menorca

lazygal wrote: »

How is terminating the pregnancy causing the unintended death of a 12 weeks foetus?

*sighs*
Because the intention of the procedure is to save the mother's life.

There's only so many more times I'll repeat myself on this one folks.

If you can't accept my view on this, then fine. I'll get over it, while continuing to advocate with all my might against the abortion industry's delegates.

Two Sheds

otpmb wrote: »

I know, do you believe the use of abortion pills or removal of an embryo from the fallopian tube should not be used to treat ectopic pregnancies as they directly target the foetus as opposed to complete removal of a fallopian tube where the foetus/baby dies indirectly due to the removal of the tube?

It doesn't matter what I believe. The procedures are within the law. Why make an issue of it?