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

Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Options
1…6263656768…124

Comments

  • Options
    #1922
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    robp wrote: »
    You did. You said

    Plus we are discussing terminally ill kids here so its a given.

    Did I use the word "child", as you claim I did? Perhaps you can quote that?

    We are actually discussing fetuses, not kids.


  • Options
    #1923
    Mya Nice Tuner
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Mya Nice Tuner


    robp wrote: »
    People don't drive JCBs through playgrounds so there is no specific framework for dealing with it. .

    It wouldn't fall under any existing legislation? I find that extremely hard to believe.
    robp wrote: »
    But there are abortions in Ireland backstreet surgical types prior to the 1960s and some pill-based types today so there is a precedent.

    And how many of them have been brought to the attention of the Gardaí?


  • Options
    #1924
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    robp wrote: »
    I think you misread the post. The poster alleged aborting a gravely ill baby is procedure but actually its elective.

    you said:
    robp wrote: »
    Aborting ill babies is not a medical issue. Its an elective procedure. Oh they are not persecuted are they? They are just in the way are they?

    Whether to abort or not due to, e.g. fatal abormalities, is a medical issue. Just because the patient has a choice (as the patient should always should) doesn't stop it being one.

    What about a woman who needs to abort to continue cancer treatment? That not a medical issue either?

    If a woman has a foetus in her body that she doesn't want to carry to term, it's a medical issue. She's hardly going to ring an electrican.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1925
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    Deleted User wrote: »
    It wouldn't fall under any existing legislation? I find that extremely hard to believe.
    Of course. it was not the contention such behaviour would go uncharged.
    The point was there is a precedent.

    Kev W wrote: »
    Did I use the word "child", as you claim I did? Perhaps you can quote that?

    We are actually discussing fetuses, not kids.
    Well actually they are inclusive terms.


  • Options
    #1926
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    Delirium wrote: »
    you said:


    Whether to abort or not due to, e.g. fatal abormalities, is a medical issue. Just because the patient has a choice (as the patient should always should) doesn't stop it being one.

    What about a woman who needs to abort to continue cancer treatment? That not a medical issue either?

    If a woman has a foetus in her body that she doesn't want to carry to term, it's a medical issue. She's hardly going to ring an electrican.
    Sure, if you want to work from a different definition of medical. Fine. But the real issues is how elective the procedure it. Face lifts are elective procedures, but they are still performed by medics. The point is, that aborting a sick baby is no more medically necessary, no more than pushing your cancer stricken granddad off a cliff is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1927
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    robp wrote: »
    Well actually they are inclusive terms.

    No.


  • Options
    #1928
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    robp wrote: »
    Sure, if you want to work from a different definition of medical. Fine. But the real issues is how elective the procedure it. Face lifts are elective procedures, but they are still performed by medics. The point is, that aborting a sick baby is no more medically necessary, no more than pushing your cancer stricken granddad off a cliff is.

    You can keep insisting on that, it won't become true. All the nonsense comparisons in the world won't change the facts.


  • Options
    #1929
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    robp wrote: »
    Sure, if you want to work from a different definition of medical. Fine. But the real issues is how elective the procedure it. Face lifts are elective procedures, but they are still performed by medics. The point is aborting a sick baby is no more medically necessary, no more than is pushing your cancer stricken granddad off a cliff.

    Abortion isn't a cosmetic procedure, it's a medical procedure.

    And a foetus that won't survive beyond the womb isn't just sick, they're terminal. There is no medical reason to continue the pregnancy in such a situation. So it falls (or at least should) to the woman to make a choice whether to continue or abort. That's medical issue. I fail to see how it couldn't be.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1930
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    robp wrote: »
    Well actually they are inclusive terms.
    Not all kids are foetuses.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1931
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    Delirium wrote: »
    Abortion isn't a cosmetic procedure, it's a medical procedure.

    And a foetus that won't survive beyond the womb isn't just sick, they're terminal. There is no medical reason to continue the pregnancy in such a situation. So it falls (or at least should) to the woman to make a choice whether to continue or abort. That's medical issue. I fail to see how it couldn't be.

    Cosmetic procedures are medical procedures. In fact its called aesthetic medicine. I often use medical for procedures that are medically necessary but if you want to play the pedantic game...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1932
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    robp wrote: »
    Cosmetic procedures are medical procedures in your definition.

    Where was this definition given?


  • Options
    #1933
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    robp wrote: »
    Cosmetic procedures are medical procedures. In fact its called aesthetic medicine. I often use medical for procedures that are medically necessary but if you want to play the pedantic game...

    So what makes a medical procedure not a medical issue then? To have it or not, surely has to be a medical issue?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1934
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    Delirium wrote: »
    So what makes a medical procedure not a medical issue then? To have it or not, surely has to be a medical issue?

    As articulated previously the term medical means hugely different things to different situations. Regardless, a social abortion is always a social abortion. It helps no one. Slapping the term medical on it does not change that.


  • Options
    #1935
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    Kev W wrote: »
    No. If you never have a child you're not a parent. that's not even debatable.

    A parent is someone with progeny. A foetus is always progeny. A women with a miscarriage or abortion is a parent. Actually parent is thought to come from the proto indo-european pere- to bring forth. hardly matters how the long offspring lived.


  • Options
    #1936
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    robp wrote: »
    A parent is someone with progeny. A foetus is always progeny. A women with a miscarriage or abortion is a parent. Actually parent is thought to come from the proto indo-european pere- to bring forth. hardly matters how the long offspring lived.

    It's "woman".

    Since we're splitting hairs.


  • Options
    #1937
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    robp wrote: »
    As articulated previously the term medical means hugely different things to different situations. Regardless, a social abortion is always a social abortion. It helps no one. Slapping the term medical on it does not change that.


    how is aborting a foetus with a fatal abnormality a "social abortion"?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1938
    robp
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,934 ✭✭✭robp


    Delirium wrote: »
    how is aborting a foetus with a fatal abnormality a "social abortion"?

    It offers no improvement in the health of the mother.


  • Options
    #1939
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,545 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    robp wrote: »
    It offers no improvement in the health of the mother.

    It does of course, or does the mental anguish of being forced to give birth and then watching your baby die not count in your world?


  • Options
    #1940
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    It does of course, or does the mental anguish of being forced to give birth and then watching your baby die not count in your world?

    Of course not, the mother has ALREADY been born. She doesn't matter any more. What's worse she's a *ugh* woman.


  • Options
    #1941
    The Randy Riverbeast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭The Randy Riverbeast


    robp wrote: »
    It offers no improvement in the health of the mother.

    Pregnancy can be quite rough on the body. Ending a pregnancy early when there is just going to be a stillborn or death in a few hours would reduce the stress on the body during pregnancy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1942
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    robp wrote: »
    It offers no improvement in the health of the mother.

    So aborting a foetus that is causing a woman mental and emotional distress doesn't improve the health of the woman? Really?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1943
    ucseae1
    Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭ucseae1


    Delirium wrote: »
    So aborting a foetus that is causing a woman mental and emotional distress doesn't improve the health of the woman? Really?

    Abortion isn't a treatment for depression or stress. Just because you kill the child dosen't mean the women is going to be better off.


  • Options
    #1944
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,799 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    robp wrote: »
    Of course it is barbaric and unacceptable to kill someone because they have terminal illness.

    As long as you want to open up that can of worms..

    http://euthanasia.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000126


  • Options
    #1945
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,799 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    ucseae1 wrote: »
    Abortion isn't a treatment for depression or stress. Just because you kill the child dosen't mean the women is going to be better off.

    Can you imagine any scenario where a fetus with a terminal post-partum outlook is brought to live birth, dies almost immediately (if not stillborn) and the mother is somehow left feeling uplifted about it?


  • Options
    #1946
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,779 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    ucseae1 wrote: »
    Abortion isn't a treatment for depression or stress.
    Didn't sat it was.
    Just because you kill the child dosen't mean the women is going to be better off.

    It's a better option to forcing her to carry a pregnancy against her wishes.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #1947
    ucseae1
    Registered Users Posts: 63 ✭✭ucseae1


    Overheal wrote: »
    Can you imagine any scenario where a fetus with a terminal post-partum outlook is brought to live birth, dies almost immediately (if not stillborn) and the mother is somehow left feeling uplifted about it?

    Is a disabled child at any stage of his/her development any less human?

    Take Jaxon Buell, doctors said he would never survive. Now they no longer predict a prognosis. No every child with anencephaly is going to die.

    A child is still a child.

    Being pro-life is not about finding an easy exit to situations, its about doing what is right.


  • Options
    #1948
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,501 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Overheal wrote: »
    Can you imagine any scenario where a fetus with a terminal post-partum outlook is brought to live birth, dies almost immediately (if not stillborn) and the mother is somehow left feeling uplifted about it?

    If the mother had chosen to continue the pregnancy to term, that would be one thing, but the scenario people like useae want is one where the woman is not allowed to decide whether or not the fetus remains inside her until its full term, has to give birth against her will, not knowing what state the baby will be in when it's born, or how much it will suffer, but just knowing that it will die within minutes, hours or at most days and possibly in terrible pain.

    And we're expected to take their word for it that this is a "pro-life" attitude?
    I don't think so.


  • Options
    #1949
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,799 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    ucseae1 wrote: »
    Take Jaxon Buell, doctors said he would never survive. Now they no longer predict a prognosis. No every child with anencephaly is going to die.
    "When we first learned there were concerns for Jax during the pregnancy, we were given the options of carrying him to term or having an abortion because there was the unknown issue. No doctor could tell us exactly what was wrong or what to expect, but we did make sure to ask if Jaxon was in pain or was suffering, and we asked if there were any added risks for Brittany during the pregnancy or potentially at time of delivery. Since the answer to both questions was "no," we never came close to considering abortion. Yes, we are Christians, and our faith has certainly been vital during this entire journey for our family, but we're still realists. Had there been any suffering in the womb or a danger involved other than Jaxon possibly not being able to live outside the womb because of the concern for his head and brain, then we certainly would have had a different discussion. However, that wasn't the case, and it was our choice, and only our choice."
    - Brandon Buell, father

    Also you're talking about a birth that happened in 2014 and claiming "[doctors] no longer predict a [prognosis]." Do you have a source for that? It seems highly unlikely that the broader scientific community would just abandon their function as doctors - which is to treat each patient as a unique case, on an individual basis - for the sake of one fluke birth in which one child in one case, so far, has lived to 12 months. No, doctors will give the patient the facts, based on their case, as they do all the time in medicine. Just because some people have survived brain tumors does not mean doctors stopped giving people pragmatic outlooks. "Well I have a pretty good idea whether you will live or die, but since one guy one time made it through this, I'm legally/ethically not allowed to tell you what your chance of living is? I guess you'll just be left to stress and wonder about that?"

    Doctors getting a prognosis wrong in the favor of a patient, really. You think if statistically that maybe 2% of babies with some rare terminal disease, live more than a couple weeks (maybe 0.0001% of them live to full adulthood and beyond), that should justify putting the other 98% through an almost sure tragic end, and all of their expectant mothers also? What would we do with all the fetal tissue? I guess it would have to be donated to research the disease right. Same end by different and twisted means.


  • Options
    #1950
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    ucseae1 wrote: »
    Is a disabled child at any stage of his/her development any less human?

    Take Jaxon Buell, doctors said he would never survive. Now they no longer predict a prognosis. No every child with anencephaly is going to die.

    A child is still a child.

    Being pro-life is not about finding an easy exit to situations, its about doing what is right.

    I would have no hesitation in taking myself to England, or any other first world country, and aborting a foetus with fatal foetal abnormalities, that was not going to survive at birth or long after. I'd also have no hesitation in aborting for abnormalities where the child would live, but their level of disability would be so severe that they would never have any reasonable quality of life.

    I'd just love to explain to my 7 year old who longs for a sibling, that yes mummy is finally pregnant and you are going to have a brother or sister, but they will die as soon as they are born. It would be wonderful to answer 'congratulations' and 'when are you due' comments from workmates, other parents at the school gate, whilst knowing full well that as soon as I gave birth, my baby would die. To expect any family to go through that against their will is absurd, inhumane and ridiculous.

    Sometimes I wonder what planet you anti choicers live on at all!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1951
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    ucseae1 wrote: »
    Being pro-life is not about finding an easy exit to situations, its about doing what is right.
    This sounds like you prefer making things difficult for pregnant women just because you think the harder way is better, a sort of suffering always being a good thing. I don't think its easier to travel, at great financial and emotional expense, for a medical procedure.

    Do you think we should make labour and not dying in childbirth easier as well, because things like epidurals are an easy exit? Was having my children by c section an easy exit to my situation?


Advertisement