Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Two Sheds

otpmb wrote: »

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.

This is scaremongering nonsense.

Doctors in Irish hospitals provide all necessary care to pregnant mothers.

"If a woman is critically ill and it's very obvious she is likely to die and she will be saved by intervening and treating her, and that treatment involves interrupting or terminating a pregnancy, we will not hesitate to do so,"

The master of the National Maternity Hospital

otpmb

Two Sheds wrote: »

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

Because many people here, who only support abortion when there is a direct threat to a woman life, believe that the death of the baby is an unavoidable unintentional consequence of saving the woman's life. Surely in an ectopic pregnancy, if the foetus is directly targeted by abortion pills or by it's removal from the fallopian tube, the intention of the doctor is to "kill the baby" whereas if the fallopian tube is removed the foetus isn't directly targeted. Do you think that abortion pills or removal of a foetus from a fallopian tube is not directly target a foetus in an ectopic pregnancy?

Two Sheds

otpmb wrote: »

Because many people here, who only support abortion when there is a direct threat to a woman life, believe that the death of the baby is an unavoidable unintentional consequence of saving the woman's life. Surely in an ectopic pregnancy, if the foetus is directly targeted by abortion pills or by it's removal from the fallopian tube, the intention of the doctor is to "kill the baby" whereas if the fallopian tube is removed the foetus isn't directly targeted. Do you think that abortion pills or removal of a foetus from a fallopian tube is not directly target a foetus in an ectopic pregnancy?

You appear to be on some sort of mental merry-go-round. I hope it doesn't make you dizzy.

otpmb

Two Sheds wrote: »

You appear to be on some sort of mental merry-go-round. I hope it doesn't make you dizzy.

I'm not, I'm asking a question out of curiosity about intent and ectopic pregnancies, answer the question?

robdonn

So anyway, to bring the thread back on topic...

Planned Parenthood Federal Funding Withdrawn After Investigation Finds Evidence Of Illegal Sales

umop apisdn

I thought abortion is now permitted in Ireland for medical reasons, or was the whole Savita hype and law change all bull ?

lazygal

umop apisdn wrote: »

I thought abortion is now permitted in Ireland for medical reasons, or was the whole Savita hype and law change all bull ?

It is only permitted to save a woman's life. Abortion on any other grounds is illegal. Abortion where a woman's health is at risk is not permitted. Unless you can travel.

Overheal

Black Menorca wrote: »

Yes, any act of violence, with the intention to do harm to the victim, and the victim dies, manslaughter could well be considered.

If that were true, why are there zero manslaughter charges pending against doctors that have performed abortions?

lazybones32 wrote: »

Which is?...Did you forget what you were supposed to be writing about after you started?

Had I recalled what the word was, I would have used it. That was the whole thrust of that statement.

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.

So then are you just going to soapbox?

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

How do you propose to prove intent to this standard?

Black Menorca wrote: »

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,

Thank. Your. God.

[...] while continuing to advocate with all my might against the abortion industry's delegates.

So abortion is an 'industry' now; and who are the delegates exactly?

Two Sheds wrote: »

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

Spot on. The procedures are within the law.

Two Sheds wrote: »

This is scaremongering nonsense.

Doctors in Irish hospitals provide all necessary care to pregnant mothers.
The master of the National Maternity Hospital

Do we need to spend more time re-visiting the Indian girl's death? A very long, exhaustive inquest found your statement to be in factual error. Though they intend to :cool:

umop apisdn

lazygal wrote: »

It is only permitted to save a woman's life. Abortion on any other grounds is illegal. Abortion where a woman's health is at risk is not permitted. Unless you can travel.

Well taking another life is not necessary then.

lazygal

umop apisdn wrote: »

Well taking another life is not necessary then.

It is necessary to take the life of a foetus if a woman's life is at risk. It was necessary 26 times last year.

Black Menorca

robdonn wrote: »

So anyway, to bring the thread back on topic...

Planned Parenthood Federal Funding Withdrawn After Investigation Finds Evidence Of Illegal Sales

Give it time dude.

Black Menorca

lazygal wrote: »

It is necessary to take the life of a foetus if a woman's life is at risk. It was necessary 26 times last year.

Talk about mis-information.

Do you have a shred of evidence any doctor took the life of any unborn baby in any of those 26 cases?

I'd be very careful how I answer this if I were you.

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

Talk about mis-information.

Do you have a shred of evidence any doctor took the life of any unborn baby in any of those 26 cases?

I'd be very careful how I answer this if I were you.

are you suggesting that all foetuses survived the abortions?

robdonn

"Black wrote:

I'd be very careful how I answer this if I were you.

Why? Is it because it will be warped and skewed to meet the personal misinterpretation of intent as held by some people?

By the way, is nobody interested in my cure for Downs Syndrome?

lazygal

Black Menorca wrote: »

Talk about mis-information.

Do you have a shred of evidence any doctor took the life of any unborn baby in any of those 26 cases?

I'd be very careful how I answer this if I were you.

There's the report laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. 26 pregnancies were terminated last year under the POLDP Act. Maybe in some cases such as Miss Y the direct targeting of the unborn resulted in live births. Maybe in other cases directly targeting the unborn to save the life of the woman resulted in the intentional death of the unborn.

Black Menorca

Delirium wrote: »

are you suggesting that all foetuses survived the abortions?

No. Of course not.

Jesus wept.

Black Menorca

lazygal wrote: »

There's the report laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. 26 pregnancies were terminated last year under the POLDP Act. Maybe in some cases such as Miss Y the direct targeting of the unborn resulted in live births. Maybe in other cases directly targeting the unborn to save the life of the woman resulted in the intentional death of the unborn.

So you have no evidence of your previuos contention of "It is necessary to take the life of a foetus if a woman's life is at risk."

Delirium

Black Menorca wrote: »

No. Of course not.

Jesus wept.

well choose your words better then.

Do you have a shred of evidence any doctor took the life of any unborn baby in any of those 26 cases?

because that reads as if you did.

otpmb

Black Menorca wrote: »

So you have no evidence of your previuos contention of "It is necessary to take the life of a foetus if a woman's life is at risk."

It is necessary to take the life of a foetus when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy in her fallopian tubes. Do you support Roman Catholic Church teaching that it is never permissible to evacuate the fetus using methotrexate or to incise the Fallopian tube to extract the fetus (salpingostomy), as these procedures are considered to be direct abortion?

Two Sheds

Obama: "Killing Humans And Harvesting Their Organs Is An Atrocity That Must End.”

He warned of dehumanizing marginal groups of humans and of the problems that arise when ‘you are not able to see someone else as a human being.’

The Extraordinary Moral Hypocrisy of President Obama

Black Menorca

Delirium wrote: »

well choose your words better then.



because that reads as if you did.

Ah here. This is getting silly now.

Black Menorca

otpmb wrote: »

It is necessary to take the life of a foetus when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy in her fallopian tubes. Do you support Roman Catholic Church teaching that it is never permissible to evacuate the fetus using methotrexate or to incise the Fallopian tube to extract the fetus (salpingostomy), as these procedures are considered to be direct abortion?

Yes.

otpmb

Black Menorca wrote: »

Yes.

Awesome, thank you for your answer, I'm just trying to understand the "intention" argument using real life situations. I take it then you do not believe in induced labour before a foetus is viable outside the womb too?

Black Menorca

otpmb wrote: »

Awesome, thank you for your answer, I'm just trying to understand the "intention" argument using real life situations. I take it then you do not believe in induced labour before a foetus is viable outside the womb too?

An induced labour is a termination of pregnancy.

This can only be justified if the intention is to save the mother's life.

volchitsa

Black Menorca wrote: »

Yes.

The result in terms of the fetus is exactly the same, since it cannot possibly survive the procedure.

However the result for the woman can be very different : she has a much higher risk of being left with reduced fertility by the religiously-approved surgical procedure than by the non mutilating methotrexate injection which targets only the fetus and not her fallopian tube.

The surgeon's intentions are also exactly the same, no matter which method is used to end the ectopic pregnancy, but with the non surgical method, the woman is less damaged as a result.

Whereas instead of going on to have a baby with a later pregnancy, the final result of the surgical mutilation is quite likely to be no more babies ever, for that couple. All to preserve a fiction that no-one intended to kill the fetus when we all know that ending an ectopic pregnancy entails killing the embryo/fetus.


How is that pro-life?

The Randy Riverbeast

If a person has an abortion with the intention to end the pregnancy it becomes ok? Only abortions where you want to kill something are the bad one?

Black Menorca

volchitsa wrote: »

The result in terms of the fetus is exactly the same, since it cannot possibly survive the procedure.

However the result for the woman can be very different : she has a much higher risk of being left with reduced fertility by the religiously-approved surgical procedure than by the non mutilating methotrexate injection which targets only the fetus and not her fallopian tube.

The surgeon's intentions are also exactly the same, no matter which method is used to end the ectopic pregnancy, but with the non surgical method, the woman is less damaged as a result.

Whereas instead of going on to have a baby with a later pregnancy, the final result of the surgical mutilation is quite likely to be no more babies ever, for that couple. All to preserve a fiction that no-one intended to kill the fetus when we all know that ending an ectopic pregnancy entails killing the embryo/fetus.


How is that pro-life?

Because with the other two methods there is a direct and intentional attack on the unborn baby.

Black Menorca

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

If a person has an abortion with the intention to end the pregnancy it becomes ok? Only abortions where you want to kill something are the bad one?

I never said that.

The Randy Riverbeast

Black Menorca wrote: »

I never said that.

Then how does intent come into it? You might have mentioned it before and I just missed it.

A woman can have an abortion to save her life or to end a pregnancy. The intention isnt to kill the unborn but it can be a consequence, sometimes even 100% chance of it ending that way.

Two Sheds

Is the dam about to break on the Irish media?
2 hours ago -

ABORTION HAS RETURNED to the top of the American political agenda recently, thanks to a series of controversial videos.

Explainer: Why everyone is arguing about Planned Parenthood in America