Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

inocybe

frostyjacks wrote: »

You're confusing a natural miscarriage (not a crime) with abortion (a crime). This girl ignored offers of help, was dead set on breaking the law and can count herself lucky not to be sitting in a jail cell right now. What it is about these people that they think the law doesn't apply to them?

What would you call a miscarriage where the mother took a lot of ibuprofen and vitamin C? Or drank a lot of alcohol? Is that a crime?
How about taking arthritis medication belonging to a relative.... how about the same medication ordered on the internet???
When does a miscarriage become a crime?

frag420

inocybe wrote: »

What would you call a miscarriage where the mother took a lot of ibuprofen and vitamin C? Or drank a lot of alcohol? Is that a crime?
How about taking arthritis medication belonging to a relative.... how about the same medication ordered on the internet???
When does a miscarriage become a crime?

When NastyJacks says its a crime.......

frostyjacks

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You were making an issue of how the girl in the case disposed of the by-products of the abortion. Are you saying an aborted foetus deserves to be dispatched with dignity but a miscarried one does not?

The by-product of the abortion? What kind of sick term is that? All human life is precious, and should be treated accordingly. Unfortunately, we live in the age of greed and entitlement.

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

The by-product of the abortion? What kind of sick term is that? All human life is precious, and should be treated accordingly. Unfortunately, we live in the age of greed and entitlement.

How does greed and entitlement affect how women dispose of the contents of our uteruses? Should I bury everything that's expelled into my menstrual cup in case I had a chemical pregnancy?

Loafing Oaf

frostyjacks wrote: »

All human life is precious, and should be treated accordingly.

From the moment of fertilisation? How would this work in IVF clinics for instance? Should staff hold a little prayer service before they pour surplus embryos down the sink?

oscarBravo

Cabaal wrote: »

What would you prefer them to do with it? Incinerate it?, because thats what happens with medical waste normally in hospitals throughout the UK, Ireland and pretty much the world.

seamus wrote: »

So, would you prefer that it was put in a rubbish bag and incinerated in a big fire with a load of medical waste, or flushed down into the public sewer with mountains of faeces and toilet paper?

Because they're your only two options really. That's where all of the other foetuses of this age end up.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

What do you expect us to do? Scrape the products of conception off the pads and out of our underwear and scoop bits out of the toilet for burial under a tree in a little white box? What method of disposal is allowed, FrostyJack?

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Are you saying an aborted foetus deserves to be dispatched with dignity but a miscarried one does not?

lazygal wrote: »

How does greed and entitlement affect how women dispose of the contents of our uteruses? Should I bury everything that's expelled into my menstrual cup in case I had a chemical pregnancy?

It's almost funny to see how these questions have been studiously ignored, except for the entirely transparent dodge that there's somehow a practical difference between a miscarriage and an abortion.

It's almost as if frostyjacks has no answers; just snap judgements.

Pherekydes

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's almost as if frostyjacks has no answers; just snap judgements.

He has. It's the naturalistic fallacy.

I wonder what he thinks of chemotherapy, or root canal treatment.

frostyjacks

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's almost funny to see how these questions have been studiously ignored, except for the entirely transparent dodge that there's somehow a practical difference between a miscarriage and an abortion.

It's almost as if frostyjacks has no answers; just snap judgements.

It's really none of my business what mother nature does to a pregnancy, or what a woman does after that. But if someone deliberately ends the life of the unborn, that is a crime and I want to see the law applied. We can't pick and choose which laws we obey.

The actions of the girl in this case, in ignoring the options available to her, refusing help, her total disregard for the law and the revolting method of disposal are indefensible. That's why she plead guilty. There is no defence, no muddying the waters or conflating her crime with a miscarriage. It was a vile, barbaric act that has no place in a civilised society.

Absolam

drkpower wrote: »

As often happens in these cases, you have gotten a few things mixed up. The Judgement did not find that as there was no realistic prospect of emerging alive, the best interests of the unborn child were not served by maintaining somatic support. It found that the best interests of the unborn child were not served by maintaining somatic support simpliciter. One of the (many) reasons that influenced the court (as to what was in foetal best interests) was the fact that the child wouldn't be born alive, but it was only one of many. It may not seem it, but this is a very important distinction..

I don't know about mixed up; the Judgement said "As Dr. Mortell put it, while the unborn child is not yet in distress, it is facing into a “perfect storm” from which it has no realistic prospect of emerging alive. It has nothing but distress and death in prospect." and followed with conclusions, including "The Court is therefore satisfied, in the circumstances of this case, that, in the best interest of the unborn child, it should authorise at the discretion of the medical team the withdrawal of ongoing somatic support being provided for N.P. in this tragic and unfortunate case." I think the 'therefore' serves reasonably for 'as'; it certainly indicates the statement is not simpliciter, but follows from preceding statements.

drkpower wrote: »

Also, to be clear, many many things were unclear before this judgment in relation to this specific case (and of wider application to these types of cases); too many to get into here, but its worth pointing out that while there is some additional clarity for doctors as a result of this judgment, the clarity really only extends to another almost identical case. Change some of the pertinent facts slightly, and a new dilemma arises.

Sure; there may well have been other aspects that some found unclear. I think the Court were well aware of just how specific the clarity they were offering was; there's sufficient variables involved in such a decision that it would be sensible for dissimilar cases to be brought before a Court rather than be able to rely on an overbroad ruling from the specifics of this particular event.

drkpower wrote: »

To say as you do above that 'the only thing I think was unclear was whether the Doctors were obliged by law to maintain support for an unborn child once they had the knowledge that such support was inevitably futile' is just wrong. When this case arose, a load of pertinent legal matters were unclear:
- did the 8th amendment even apply to this case given it didn't relate to abortion?
- were the mothers rights part of the consideration given that she was all-but-dead?
- if a foetus is not capable of being born alive, does it have a right to life?
- is acting in a foetus' best interest (to withdraw life support) in breach of the 8th amendment to vindicate his right to life
- and many many more
When this issue arose, all of these matters (and more) were relevant and none were clear. Not all of them are clear even now. Some of these have been answered/clarified by PP, but loads of other questions haven't been (and more issues have been raised by PP).

Mmm... I'd agree that some felt there were issues related to the area that are/were unclear, but it wasn't the Courts place to bring clarity to them; they ruled on what was before them, and the absence of a ruling on these points would indicate they saw no need to digress into them. Had they been relevant, they would have had to rule on them.
On the 8th they ruled; "the provision, in its plain and ordinary meaning may also be seen as acknowledging in simple terms the right to life of the unborn which the State, as far as practicable, shall by its laws defend and vindicate.".
On the mothers rights they ruled; "This does not mean that the Court discounts or disregards the mother’s right to retain in death her dignity with proper respect for her autonomy with due regard to the grief and sorrow of her loved ones and their wishes.<...>The Court therefore is unimpressed with any suggestion that considerations of the dignity of the mother are not engaged once she has passed away. However, when the mother who dies is bearing an unborn child at the time of her death, the rights of that child, who is living, and whose interests are not necessarily inimical to those just expressed, must prevail over the feelings of grief and respect for a mother who is no longer living."
On whether there is a right to life when there is no prospect of birth I would say that was the meat of the judgement; that the right to life exists is beyond dispute, as it is in the Constitution, however "it might nevertheless be subject to certain qualifications. Thus although the State has an interest in preserving life, this interest is not absolute in the sense that life must be preserved and prolonged at all costs no matter what the circumstances. " (which is the shortest relevant piece that makes the point).
Whether acting in the foetus' best interests by withdrawing support is in breach of the 8th amendment to vindicate his right to life I would say is implicit in the Judgement; the Court will not make a finding contrary to law. The only way it could now be in breach of the 8th is if the Supreme Court find it so, and the case never made it to the SC.

drkpower wrote: »

That's the problem when you legislate for a massively complex area of medicine and law with one sentence. Similar areas of complexity have 100 page pieces of legislation devoted to them and still there are cases that fall between provisions. Anyone who criticises a doctor (or lawyer) from seeking court clarification in these types of scenario doesn't know what its like to be either.

I'd suggest that that one sentence in the Constitution placing the State under an obligation, is given effect and expounded/expanded in legislation, so we had the POLDPA (21 pages) at the time which was more than one sentence by far, and we now have the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act (139 pages) , which has some relevance, along with jurisprudence such as this case and the others referred to in the Judgement. So it's not like we only have one sentence to go by, in all fairness. Take "Art. 41.3.1 – “The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage on which the Family is founded and to protect it against attack.”. It's also only one sentence, yet we have a body of law and jurisprudence dealing with marriage extending into divorce, childrens rights etc. There's no reason to think 40.3.3 should be different.

Cabaal

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's really none of my business what mother nature does to a pregnancy, or what a woman does after that. But if someone deliberately ends the life of the unborn, that is a crime and I want to see the law applied. We can't pick and choose which laws we obey.

The actions of the girl in this case, in ignoring the options available to her, refusing help, her total disregard for the law and the revolting method of disposal are indefensible. That's why she plead guilty. There is no defence, no muddying the waters or conflating her crime with a miscarriage. It was a vile, barbaric act that has no place in a civilised society.

The law seems important to you,
So if abortions were made legal in Ireland tomorrow you'd accepting of that right? After all it would be the law.

You're outraged that anyone is questioning the current law in Northern Ireland, but if it changed in Ireland would you be equally outraged if somebody dared question the legality of abortions? Or are you just selectively applying your outrage and acceptance of laws?

As for the women and jail time, you and I know that was never going to happen. It would cause serious outrage and likely end up being debated in parliament, European Court of human rights etc.

The suspended sentence was only given to seem like they were taking it seriously, jail would simply not be worth the fall out it would have caused.

Finally, as for your laughable comments on disposal has of place in a civilised society. Once again hospitals and clinics worldwide dispose of fetus of this age by burning them along with medical waste. I guess that makes the world uncivilised is your view
:rolleyes:

lazygal

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's really none of my business what mother nature does to a pregnancy, or what a woman does after that. But if someone deliberately ends the life of the unborn, that is a crime and I want to see the law applied. We can't pick and choose which laws we obey.

The actions of the girl in this case, in ignoring the options available to her, refusing help, her total disregard for the law and the revolting method of disposal are indefensible. That's why she plead guilty. There is no defence, no muddying the waters or conflating her crime with a miscarriage. It was a vile, barbaric act that has no place in a civilised society.

How, exactly, do you propose to go about ensuring every woman or girl who has a miscarriage isn't instead having an abortion? The girl didn't ignore the options available to her. One option is taking abortion pills. I'm lucky-I can afford to travel if I need or want an abortion and I have a passport at the ready. I'm also sure I'm not the only woman in Ireland who made sure she had money in place just in case she needed an abortion. The eighth amendment only makes it inconvenient for wealthy women to access abortion-I don't know how it stops women like me having them at all. It only stops women like this 19 year old having access to abortion because they can't afford it.
Of course, I know you'll ignore this or come back with a robotic response about all human life being precious or some such nonsense.

mansize

Always reminds me of every sperm is sacred...

Cabaal

mansize wrote: »

Always reminds me of every sperm is sacred...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

Looking back, you can see why this movie upset the catholic church and they pushed and succeeded in having it banned in Ireland
How dare they be made fun of! :pac:

Delirium

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's really none of my business what mother nature does to a pregnancy, or what a woman does after that. But if someone deliberately ends the life of the unborn, that is a crime and I want to see the law applied. We can't pick and choose which laws we obey.

The actions of the girl in this case, in ignoring the options available to her, refusing help, her total disregard for the law and the revolting method of disposal are indefensible. That's why she plead guilty. There is no defence, no muddying the waters or conflating her crime with a miscarriage. It was a vile, barbaric act that has no place in a civilised society.

No, she didn't. She attempted to raise the funds to travel for an abortion but ultimately chose to order the pills. Just because you don't agree with her choices, doesn't mean they weren't valid options.

And are women who've miscarried and disposed of the foetus in a similar fashion subject to your ire too?

MrPudding

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

From the moment of fertilisation? How would this work in IVF clinics for instance? Should staff hold a little prayer service before they pour surplus embryos down the sink?

Well, I suspect if he were to answer we might find that our friend frosty likely doesn't think there should be such a thing as IVF...

frostyjacks wrote: »

We can't pick and choose which laws we obey.

Excellent news. Can we take it then that you are now fully in support of the law in relation to marriage, as amended, after the marriage equality referendum?

MrP

oscarBravo

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's really none of my business what mother nature does to a pregnancy, or what a woman does after that.

Oh look, you said something that's true.

...the revolting method of disposal [is] indefensible.

I'll ask you the question again, because it's sort of fun to watch you squirm out of answering it: how come the method of disposal of a miscarriage is none of your business, but the exact same method of disposal used by the woman in this case is revolting and indefensible?

Why don't you care about miscarried foetuses? Have you no decency?!

Cabaal

oscarBravo wrote: »

Oh look, you said something that's true. I'll ask you the question again, because it's sort of fun to watch you squirm out of answering it: how come the method of disposal of a miscarriage is none of your business, but the exact same method of disposal used by the woman in this case is revolting and indefensible?

Why don't you care about miscarried foetuses? Have you no decency?!

Perhaps only a vile, barbaric and uncivilised person would not care about miscarried foetuses,

Or atleast thats my take on his stance on anyone that does not care about the proper disposal of foetuses, so if he doesn't care then it also applys to him?? Of course that only applys if he doesn't care.

If he does care then I'm most interested in what he believes hospitals, clinics and women at home should actually do with a miscarried fetus.

aloyisious

MrPudding wrote: »

Well, I suspect if he were to answer we might find that our friend frosty likely doesn't think there should be such a thing as IVF...

Excellent news. Can we take it then that you are now fully in support of the law in relation to marriage, as amended, after the marriage equality referendum?

MrP

For what it's worth, civil marriage has been available to both agnostic and non-faith heterosexual couples for decades. Church or religiously minded persons opposed to marriage equality for same-sex couples on the grounds that it would affect their religious-marriages seem to have been blissfully-ignorant to that fact. Their opposition to ME was based on a false premise. I await his/her/their response to your question.

The Randy Riverbeast

frostyjacks wrote: »

The by-product of the abortion? What kind of sick term is that? All human life is precious, and should be treated accordingly. Unfortunately, we live in the age of greed and entitlement.

Unless that human life is Muslim. Then you consider it lesser.

Neyite

oscarBravo wrote: »

how come the method of disposal of a miscarriage is none of your business, but the exact same method of disposal used by the woman in this case is revolting and indefensible?

Why don't you care about miscarried foetuses? Have you no decency?!

I actually would really like the answer to this too. I bled my miscarriages onto sanitary towels and some went down the toilet when I used it. I put the sanitary towels, wipes I used to clean up, and even the destroyed underwear from leaks into a bag, and into a bin. I'd really like to know how to collect the entirety of the miscarriage over the 6 days I usually bleed for to dispose of properly.

Sanitary items cant be flushed. They block sewers.
I don't have a stove or a fire to incinerate.
I don't have a garden to bury the items and to be honest, likely foxes or dogs would likely dig up items.
If I attend the early pregnancy unit, they possibly would dispose of my collection of soiled pads but it would be into the hospital incinerator. But then, I'm clogging up an overstretched health care system and well, since I'm not on contraception I should probably go every month with my little bag of period, because there could be a fertilised embryo that didn't implant in there.

I'd really like to know the official way to deal with disposal of miscarriage, because in all my appointments to discuss them with my healthcare professionals, not one has explained how I should appropriately dispose of them.

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

frostyjacks wrote: »

We can't pick and choose which laws we obey.

Excellent news. Can we take it then that you are now fully in support of the law in relation to marriage, as amended, after the marriage equality referendum?

Shoe, meet the other foot.

frostyjacks

Neyite wrote: »

I actually would really like the answer to this too. I bled my miscarriages onto sanitary towels and some went down the toilet when I used it. I put the sanitary towels, wipes I used to clean up, and even the destroyed underwear from leaks into a bag, and into a bin. I'd really like to know how to collect the entirety of the miscarriage over the 6 days I usually bleed for to dispose of properly.

Sanitary items cant be flushed. They block sewers.
I don't have a stove or a fire to incinerate.
I don't have a garden to bury the items and to be honest, likely foxes or dogs would likely dig up items.
If I attend the early pregnancy unit, they possibly would dispose of my collection of soiled pads but it would be into the hospital incinerator. But then, I'm clogging up an overstretched health care system and well, since I'm not on contraception I should probably go every month with my little bag of period, because there could be a fertilised embryo that didn't implant in there.

I'd really like to know the official way to deal with disposal of miscarriage, because in all my appointments to discuss them with my healthcare professionals, not one has explained how I should appropriately dispose of them.

I can't imagine anyone of sound mind and body would throw it in the bin with the household rubbish. Surely that's wrong? Babies in bins....a chilling vision of the future you'd have us living in.

oscarBravo

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's really none of my business what mother nature does to a pregnancy, or what a woman does after that.

frostyjacks wrote: »

I can't imagine anyone of sound mind and body would throw it in the bin with the household rubbish. Surely that's wrong?

I guess when it comes down to a straight choice between being self-righteously pious and judgemental, or admitting that women's bodily functions are none of your goddamn business, there really is only one way you know how to go.

galljga1

frostyjacks wrote: »

I can't imagine anyone of sound mind and body would throw it in the bin with the household rubbish. Surely that's wrong? Babies in bins....a chilling vision of the future you'd have us living in.

What a stupid post. It's up there with your best.

volchitsa

frostyjacks wrote: »

I can't imagine anyone of sound mind and body would throw it in the bin with the household rubbish. Surely that's wrong? Babies in bins....a chilling vision of the future you'd have us living in.

Jesus did you read that post at all, or are you really just that hard hearted?

frag420

frostyjacks wrote: »

I can't imagine anyone of sound mind and body would throw it in the bin with the household rubbish. Surely that's wrong? Babies in bins....a chilling vision of the future you'd have us living in.

Maybe each household should have Aborto-Buckets so that we don't mix it up with the household rubbish!?

frag420

Just came across this......


Russian women who decide to sell their babies instead of having an abortion will receive $3,700 under a proposed new law.
Officials are hoping the measure, which was put forward by a MP for the country's nationalist party, will boost the country's birth rate and give children 'a chance to live'.

Those of you who are anti choice/abortion, what are your thoughts? Would you be happy if the Irish government were to implement something similar?



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3530351/Russian-women-decide-against-having-abortion-SELL-babies-state-3-700-proposed-new-law.html

galljga1

frag420 wrote: »

Just came across this......


Russian women who decide to sell their babies instead of having an abortion will receive $3,700 under a proposed new law.
Officials are hoping the measure, which was put forward by a MP for the country's nationalist party, will boost the country's birth rate and give children 'a chance to live'.

Those of you who are anti choice/abortion, what are your thoughts? Would you be happy if the Irish government were to implement something similar?



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3530351/Russian-women-decide-against-having-abortion-SELL-babies-state-3-700-proposed-new-law.html

Didn't we try that. Babies taken off single women and given to 'appropriate' couples with the added advantage of free labour in such industries as laundry service.

frostyjacks

frag420 wrote: »

Just came across this......


Russian women who decide to sell their babies instead of having an abortion will receive $3,700 under a proposed new law.
Officials are hoping the measure, which was put forward by a MP for the country's nationalist party, will boost the country's birth rate and give children 'a chance to live'.

Those of you who are anti choice/abortion, what are your thoughts? Would you be happy if the Irish government were to implement something similar?



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3530351/Russian-women-decide-against-having-abortion-SELL-babies-state-3-700-proposed-new-law.html

I think it's a good idea. There are plenty of prospective parents out there who are going through years of heartache trying to conceive; it must be soul-destroying for them to read about women flaunting their abortions.

galljga1

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think it's a good idea. There are plenty of prospective parents out there who are going through years of heartache trying to conceive; it must be soul-destroying for them to read about women flaunting their abortions.

As expected.