Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

Delirium

robp wrote: »

No no. I referred to a average completely normal health child. In most there is no medical reason to not abort that child because the mother is statistically most likely to survive eitherway (apart from the mental trauma the abortion risks and risk of subsequent miscarriage). The reason to keep a terminal child is for the sake of child. So as to cherish what time is available.

But not all women will l cherish that time. It has to be better to let them decide rather than just force them in a scenario that could have serious negative health implications.

The Randy Riverbeast

robp wrote: »

There is no health based reasons for killing off such a child. Life is worth more than stress on the body.

Pregnancy and giving birth have no negative health effects then?

I was talking about in the cases of stillborn or dying soon after birth. Do you also support mandatory donation of organs, bone marrow etc? If life is more important then someone should be required to provide such things to others to prevent their death.

robp

Overheal wrote: »

What I can see though, quite plainly, is how someone with a strong religious conservatism would find the ad both offending and even a little threatening. It is needlessly melodramatic. But it rightly videotapes the crumbling religious infrastructure around the country, which is a geographical reflection of the times.

I just identified the church. Its an old Anglican Church in Wicklow (Castlemacadam Church). Its been abandoned since roughly 1870

Kev W

robp wrote: »

I just identified the church. Its an old Anglican Church in Wicklow (Castlemacadam Church). Its been abandoned since roughly 1870

Your point being?

robp

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Pregnancy and giving birth have no negative health effects then?

I was talking about in the cases of stillborn or dying soon after birth. Do you also support mandatory donation of organs, bone marrow etc? If life is more important then someone should be required to provide such things to others to prevent their death.

No because the mother and the father have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the unborn. I presume you'd agree that a parent has a responsibility to their 5 YO which they don't have to their postman.

Kev W wrote: »

Your point being?

There is change in Ireland 's religious landscape but Catholic churches are not crumbling.

The Randy Riverbeast

robp wrote: »

No because the mother and the father have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the unborn. I presume you'd agree that a parent has a responsibility to their 5 YO which they don't have to their postman.

You aren't denying you think pregnancy or child birth has no negative health effects then?

Discussing anything with a person like that is pointless if they lack basic knowledge of pregnancy.

robp

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

You aren't denying you think pregnancy or child birth has no negative health effects then?

Discussing anything with a person like that is pointless if they lack basic knowledge of pregnancy.

Pregnancy has a health impact. Some common negatives ones and a few positive ones but the risk of death is what people are mainly concerned about. Yet it is about 1 in 20,000 in a developed country like Ireland. 1 in 1 is not equal to 1 in 20,00. An incredibly low 1 in 47600 lifetime risk for Irish women according to SOWM2010 Maternal Mortality Map.

Kiwi in IE

robp wrote: »

No because the mother and the father have a responsibility to ensure the safety of the unborn. I presume you'd agree that a parent has a responsibility to their 5 YO which they don't have to their postman.

A foetus is to a five year old what an fertilised chicken egg is to a live chicken. If I threw a fertilised chicken egg into a pot of boiling water nobody would bat an eye lid, if I did the same to a live chicken, I would expect any witnesses to contact an animal welfare authority, and I would expect to be charged with animal cruelty.

The Randy Riverbeast

robp wrote: »

Pregnancy has a health impact. Some common negatives ones and a few positive ones but the risk of death is what people are mainly concerned about. Yet it is about 1 in 20,000 in a developed country like Ireland. 1 in 1 is not equal to 1 in 20,00. An incredibly low 1 in 47600 lifetime risk for Irish women according to SOWM2010 Maternal Mortality Map.

So when you said

robp wrote: »

It offers no improvement in the health of the mother.

you were wrong?

Kiwi in IE

robp wrote: »

people see through the cherry picking.

I'm not cherry picking. My personal preference for abortion is that it be available on demand, no questions asked up until a time (for me 12 weeks should be long enough to get sorted), but then I also think there should be availability right up to the point of viability for extenuating circumstances.

However it seems that given the current archaic abortion laws and the religious biased brainwashing that the majority of the country has been subject to in regard to abortion, that's unlikely to happen anytime soon. So if nothing else can be done, I think it's important to at least allow for situations where denying abortions makes Ireland seem like an inhumane, archaic, third world theocracy that treats women as second class citizens, such as fatal foetal abnormalities, sexual assault, and serious long term implications on the woman's health. If this has to be the compromise until the more brainwashed generations die out, then quite frankly I'll take it.

Timberrrrrrrr

robp wrote: »

Well if you are not interested in serious respectful discussion I don't know why you come here.


There is no health based reasons for killing off such a child. Life is worth more than stress on the body.

A assertion timber, you provide no evidence such exists. The anguish that abortion sometimes can causes is the only real concern for health here.

So you are saying that forcing a woman to give birth to a child that will not survive outside of the womb would not cause her any mental anguish?

Kev W

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you are saying that forcing a woman to give birth to a child that will not survive outside of the womb would not cause her any mental anguish?

How could it? I mean who wouldn't cherish the opportunity to watch their child die?

In fact it occurs to me that in these cases at least, it's the anti-choicers who actually want a child to die. Pro-choice people would prefer if the child never came to be, thereby ensuring they don't suffer and die at the hands of the anti-choice lobby.

Kiwi in IE

robp wrote: »

The reason to keep a terminal child is for the sake of the child. So as to cherish what time is available.

Can you explain the benefits to the child in these cases? Being born, possibly being in pain, struggling to breathe, having a few invasive medical procedures in a desperate hope to prolong life, needles, tubes etc then death soon after. For myself, if I had the option between the above scenario and never existing at all, I would choose without hesitation, to not exist. And I would make the exact same choice for any potential child of mine.

Kiwi in IE

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Can you explain the benefits to the child in these cases? Being born, possibly being in pain, struggling to breathe, having a few invasive medical procedures in a desperate hope to prolong life, needles, tubes etc then death soon after. For myself, if I had the option between the above scenario and never existing at all, I would choose without hesitation, to not exist. And I would make the exact same choice for any potential child of mine.

Further to that, the fact that you think that there would be a benefit to bringing a pregnancy where the foetus has a fatal abnormality to full term, whereas I absoloutley do not, highlights that people are all going to have completely different views on this, and why any family faced with this situation should have a choice.

If you were put in this awful situation, you would clearly choose to continue regardless, and assuming that your wife thought the same way, that is what you would do. I am not trying to stop you from doing what you believe to be best for your family. Whilst on the other hand, I would not consider that continuing with a pregnancy where the resulting child was doomed to die either shortly before or after birth, would be in the best interests of me, my family or the potential child. Why should you get to enforce what you think is best for you, onto my family and others who would make the same choice as me?

robp

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

A foetus is to a five year old what an fertilised chicken egg is to a live chicken. If I threw a fertilised chicken egg into a pot of boiling water nobody would bat an eye lid, if I did the same to a live chicken, I would expect any witnesses to contact an animal welfare authority, and I would expect to be charged with animal cruelty.

A egg is an unfertilised. A egg is basically a chicken's period.

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

So when you said
you were wrong?

It is simply not a noteworthy threat.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I'm not cherry picking. My personal preference for abortion is that it be available on demand, no questions

That is Utterly indefensible. What about the rights of the child?

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

However it seems that given the current archaic abortion laws and the religious biased brainwashing

Accusing people who disagree and refute your statements to be brainwashed doesn't grant the right to spread misleading information.

Kiwi in IE

robp wrote: »

A egg is an unfertilised. A egg is basically a chicken's period.

I said a fertilised chicken egg.

robp wrote: »

That is Utterly indefensible. What about the rights of the child?

We are not talking about a child.

robp wrote: »

Accusing people who disagree and refute your statements to be brainwashed doesn't grant the right to spread misleading information.

No one had refuted any of my statements with any effectiveness, and what 'misleading information' am I spreading exactly?

PopePalpatine

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

what 'misleading information' am I spreading exactly?

Suggesting a woman is worth more than a fatally abnormal foetus.

The Randy Riverbeast

robp wrote: »

It is simply not a noteworthy threat.

Why did you say there was none? Now when it is pointed out to you they just become something you can ignore. You accuse others of spreading misleading information when you have tried to gloss over the effects a pregnancy can have on a woman's health.

Whether or not they are noteworthy would depend on the situation wouldnt it? Should we inform doctors that there is no such thing as a high risk pregnancy?

Kiwi in IE

robp wrote: »

A egg is an unfertilised. A egg is basically a chicken's period.

Just back to this for a minute... if an egg is always unfertilised, where do chickens come from?

robp

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I said a fertilised chicken egg.
We are not talking about a child.

No one had refuted any of my statements with any effectiveness, and what 'misleading information' am I spreading exactly?

Fair enough you did. Whether or not a people see cruelty or animal cruelty in situations says more about ones philosophy than biology. An unborn foetus is a human person. If If went around to national parks in central Africa shooting gorillas you wouldn't be a very popular person. But that doesn't imply that gorillas are human person. If aborted unborn gorillas you also wouldn't be a very popular person.

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Why did you say there was none? Now when it is pointed out to you they just become something you can ignore. You accuse others of spreading misleading information when you have tried to gloss over the effects a pregnancy can have on a woman's health.
Whether or not they are noteworthy would depend on the situation wouldnt it? Should we inform doctors that there is no such thing as a high risk pregnancy?

But we are not speaking about high risk pregnancies. They are not relevant to the PP scandal. In most high pregnancies high levels of care are implemented not abortions.

cattolico

robp wrote: »

But we are not speaking about high risk pregnancies. They are not relevant to the PP scandal. In most high pregnancies high levels of care are implemented not abortions.

Exactly that is where the pro-abortion groups like amnesty are blurring the lines in Ireland. Claiming that we don't care for women at risk. Spreading lies that women don't have the best medical care available in Ireland to manage these risks.

The reality is that Doctors have all the options available to make sure a women does not die in pregnancy.

frag420

@catolico......now that you have rejoined the debate this afternoon could you please answer this question for the benefit of the thread. Please read it carefully before you answer so that we don't end up going around in circles,just answer the what's asked without throwing accusation, questions etc.

If you can't answer then just say so....we understand!

frag420 wrote: »

So lets assume your 13 yr old sister was viciously raped by a relative. The doctors tells you there is a serious risk to the health of your 13 yr old sister if she continues with the pregnancy as well a serious risk to the life of unborn child, only one will survive the pregnancy but the doctors can't be sure who?

On top of that by maintaining her pregnancy she will have to drop out of school for the foreseeable future to look after the child thus reducing any reasonable chance of a decent education/life going forward. The stats on young mothers speak for themselves so no need to debate them.

So my Christian friend, who's life do you save? Would you allow your sister to have an abortion that may save her life at the cost of the foetus? Or would you be happy for her to remain pregnant in the hope that both will survive but also knowing that your sister could die and you are left with a child with no mother or a 13 yr old sister who has lost her first born?

More to the point what if your sister said she wanted an abortion as she did not want to become a mother so young and also risk dying to save a rapist child?

And before you answer can I please ask you to actually answer the question above with out asking a question. I know its hypothetical but for once do the rest of us a courtesy and just answer what is being asked!!

cattolico

@frag420 If a Mother is dying then doctors terminate. Who is disputing this?


Yet these extreme examples of .0001% of pregnancies are used to fundament a liberal on demand abortion regime. Doctors in Ireland manage risk all the time. They don't sit around letting mother and baby die.

If a mother won't survive the pregnancy then NOBODY is disputing the termination of the pregnancy. I uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

Now there are some women who have denied treatment to allow their child survive while the mother dies.. However the Catholic Church does not teach that a women should not get treatment that would save her life. The catholic church is not asking pregnant women to die so their child can live.

There are dozens of procedures carried out in Ireland every year that result in the termination of the pregnancy. Its already happening. Nobody has targeted the child, its simply best medical practice. We don't need to change the 8th amendment to give excellent medical care to pregnant women.

robp

frag420 wrote: »

@catolico......now that you have rejoined the debate this afternoon could you please answer this question for the benefit of the thread. Please read it carefully before you answer so that we don't end up going around in circles,just answer the what's asked without throwing accusation, questions etc.

If you can't answer then just say so....we understand!

A US survey from 2004 estimated that <0.5 % of abortions relate to rape or incest*. So one might wonder why the constant statistical illiteracy? Usually that is what occurs hard data and an ideology collide in this case the abortion movement.


*Finer et al. 2005, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 37(3):110-118, on line at AGI url]http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf[/url.

volchitsa

cattolico wrote: »

As regards Gay marriage (civil marriage) I voted yes because i have a family member. I think gay couples are better protected with civil laws.

as regards abortion

Risk to Life and Risk to Health are too extremely different things.

So when you have a family member who is concerned, the whole "Cattolico" thing goes out the window, eh?
If you had a daughter who was likely to be left infertile by a pregnancy with FFA suddenly you wouldn't be so interested in the protection of the unborn either, I'll bet.

It's just a shame you can't empathize with people who aren't in your family!

Overheal

robp wrote: »

Its pretty hard to get exact numbers as pro aborts obfuscate any attempt to collect data on the topic. Though there is enough data to know that in the US 99% is a safe figure.

This comment is somewhat tragic given that the entire impetus of this thread is the Center for Medical Progress' attempt to release a string of videos carefully designed to spread misinformation and maximize politicization of the issue.

Explain a medical justification for a mother to keep a healthy kid? See you are sticking a nice sounding word in a completely irrelevant context. In most pregnancies the mother will be healthy either way. So there is no medical reason keeping a health kid but hey writing medical sounds compelling so who cares. That is why it is cynical to misuse the word here.

In nature most animals haven't developed many techniques for stress-induced abortions, but it is a feature of some species. At its simplest level, spiders can hatch prematurely as anyone who has stepped on one haphazardly is aware. In many mammals for instance it is not uncommon for the mother to eat offspring shortly after birth, primarily when there is a lack of food availability - which at its most basic level, is a 'social issue.'

A US survey from 2004 estimated that <0.5 % of abortions relate to rape or incest*. So one might wonder why the constant statistical illiteracy? Usually that is what occurs hard data and an ideology collide in this case the abortion movement.


*Finer et al. 2005, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 37(3):110-118, on line at AGI url]http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf[/url.

I'm curious: do you uphold live birth in all situations, particularly situations where there is no medical harm to the mother? Should a 13 year old rape victim carry to term? No cherry picking here, Rob, that is the most common type of legal exemption in most governments, and everyone has an opinion on it. You may assume the 13 year old in this case is perfectly healthy and in medical terms has a sound chance of surviving a live birth.

Doctors in Ireland manage risk all the time. They don't sit around letting mother and baby die.

I am personally not up to speed on the Irish medical system, or the resources or the wait times. 10 years ago, or so when I lived there, hospitals were being shut down and emergency services jurisdictions were being wound back. Wait times for medical care were somewhat out of control, with waiting rooms overfilled, and of one man I know who was waiting on a simple eye surgery to keep from going blind, instead went blind in the span of 6 months while he waited for care.

Do you think that the medical system of Ireland today, is adequate for the needs of Ireland - and how - and special focus of that, do you think the health system can afford to keep managing the risk of medically risky and otherwise avoidable births? That's a separate question to the one above.

cattolico

robp wrote: »

A US survey from 2004 estimated that <0.5 % of abortions relate to rape or incest*. So one might wonder why the constant statistical illiteracy? Usually that is what occurs hard data and an ideology collide in this case the abortion movement.

And in the US over 10,000 people die from gun crime. Ireland is not the US.

Your value as a human being is not determined by your parents or your circumstances. Every human being has an objective right to its existence.

frag420

cattolico wrote: »

And in the US over 10,000 people die from gun crime. Ireland is not the US.

Your value as a human being is not determined by your parents or your circumstances. Every human being has an objective right to its existence.

So why do the anti choice lobby here accept American donations from similar groups?? Why do they use American speakers at there talks?

Kev W

cattolico wrote: »

Your value as a human being is not determined by your parents or your circumstances.

Certainly not in this country. It's determined by your gender and your "religion".

cattolico

frag420 wrote: »

So why do the anti choice lobby here accept American donations from similar groups?? Why do they use American speakers at there talks?

I don't know. I'm not part of the Anti Choice lobby. Who are they?