The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Edward M

Mr.H wrote: »

Yes.

For example my dad was born two months pre mature and that was 60 years ago.

I know loads who were born a month pre mature.

So I guess my question is how pre mature can someone be born and survive? I guess that would be the 'point life begins'?

I read up on that, from 20 to 24 weeks after conception is the answer I got through googling it.

seamus

Mr.H wrote: »

I'm asking medically from a pro choice (as pro life will say earlier), when does life begin?

I had this discussion with a mate (pro life) of mine and they tried to make me feel guilty for even asking.

There is no single answer to this.

Legally it becomes a person when it is born. However written and natural law recognise that gestation is not flicking a switch, it's a continuum, where nothing actually changes from one minute to the next, but over longer periods there is a progression.

And as with any continuum, there is no single point at which it can be said that something changes from A to B.

Instead all you can do is find a range in that continuum before which statistically most things are As, and after which statistically most things are Bs.

Going back to your question, there's something missing - a definition of "life".

For most, "life" is a self-contained biological entity which can survive independently.
There is no single point at which this occurs in gestation, but statistically we can say before a short range of weeks, that the majority of foetuses cannot survive independently, and therefore are not life. And after that short range of weeks, the majority can survive independently and are therefore "life".

Oldtree

seamus wrote: »

There is no single point at which this occurs in gestation, but statistically we can say before a short range of weeks, that the majority of foetuses cannot survive independently, and therefore are not life. And after that short range of weeks, the majority can survive independently and are therefore "life".

Why do you use the word "short" rather than giving an actual number of weeks?

Hannibal_Smith

Mr.H wrote: »

Oldtree wrote:

Are you are asking when does a fetus become viable to live outside the womb of its own accord?

Yes.

For example my dad was born two months pre mature and that was 60 years ago.

I know loads who were born a month pre mature.

So I guess my question is how pre mature can someone be born and survive? I guess that would be the 'point life begins'?

Did you Google? The first thing that came up when I googled feral viability was:-

According to studies between 2003 and 2005, 20 to 35 percent of babies born at 23 weeks of gestation survive, while 50 to 70 percent of babies born at 24 to 25 weeks, and more than 90 percent born at 26 to 27 weeks, survive. It is rare for a baby weighing less than 500 g (17.6 ounces) to survive.

Hannibal_Smith

*fetal not feral :pac:

Mr.H

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

Then get better friends. If you can not talk openly with your friends, they do not deserve to be called friend.

My friends are fine. We have different opinions but that doesn't mean they should be shunned.

I hope you don't shun your parents or any friends if they turn out to have a different opinion to you on this.

I'll read your link later. In work on y mobile sp can't pen the link for some reason . But thanks for the link and I promise I will follow up later with a response.

Mr.H

ohnonotgmail wrote:

you asked when does a foetus become a baby. that is the question i answered. I made no mention of viability.

Fair point

Ave Sodalis wrote:

The heart beat you hear at 6 weeks is a pacemaker cell

Yea I know. I was just stating for the question purposes how early a beat can be heard.

Mr.H

Oldtree wrote:

Please do not say that you do not trust doctors to make an appropriate decision.

Please don't assume I will say anything. I didn't see that part in the wording and it actually does make things more clear.

nozzferrahhtoo

Mr.H wrote: »

My friends are fine. We have different opinions but that doesn't mean they should be shunned. I hope you don't shun your parents or any friends if they turn out to have a different opinion to you on this.

Read your post, and then mine, again. I was not suggesting anyone be shunned because their opinions differ. So I simply have no idea where you just pulled that response from.

I was referring to you saying "they tried to make me feel guilty for even asking."

And yes I would shun both family AND friends if they had that attitude towards me. Because such a person is not a friend. At all. People who attack you for merely asking a question are toxic, and I would happily recommend you have nothing to do with them.

ohnonotgmail

Mr.H wrote: »

My friends are fine. We have different opinions but that doesn't mean they should be shunned.

I hope you don't shun your parents or any friends if they turn out to have a different opinion to you on this.

I'll read your link later. In work on y mobile sp can't pen the link for some reason . But thanks for the link and I promise I will follow up later with a response.

Nobody has mentioned shunning anybody. But if your so-called friends make you feel guilty about your opinions then perhaps you do need better friends.

I had this discussion with a mate (pro life) of mine and they tried to make me feel guilty for even asking.

Mr.H

Hannibal_Smith wrote:

Did you Google? The first thing that came up when I googled feral viability was:-

Yea that's what I meant. Google throws a lot of various answers back.

I do like that doctors will check viability though.

seamus

Oldtree wrote: »

Why do you use the word "short" rather than giving an actual number of weeks?

No particular reason. The range is 22-25 weeks. Before this, practically all preterm births cannot survive independently. After it, practically all of them can.

This range has scoped down massively in the last 50-100 years; a century ago it would have been touch-and-go for a child born at 32 weeks. Nowadays the treatment for such a child is practically routine.

But it hasn't moved much from the 22-25 weeks limit for a few decades now. There are physical limitations to how much drugs and technology can compensate for the uterine environment, which was developed over of billions of years.

Neyite

Mr.H wrote: »

Yea that's what I meant. Google throws a lot of various answers back.

I do like that doctors will check viability though.

There isn't a stock answer for that.

It's each and every pregnancy that is different and each one is assessed accordingly and will differ from the next. Babies born full term or even overdue can be still born or not survive for long, others could be born very early indeed and survive against all the odds.

So one foetus could be viable at 24 weeks but most would not be. Then you've to factor in the cause of the early labour - it's usually because there are health conditions either with the foetus or mother that caused early labour and would have affected foetal health.

So viability is really a case by case basis and doctors would not be able to absolutely guarantee viability at any gestation. They can give you probabilities though.

Mr.H

I "should get better friends". So I should stop being friends with them? Meaning I would be shunning them. Anyway let's not get carried away with a silly misunderstanding. I accept that you didn't mean it that way.

I think this debate does just get everyone worked up. I'm sure I make them feel guilty also. It is I'm sure not intentional.

But 2 months from now we all have to get over the result no matter the outcome.

Oldtree

Mr.H wrote: »

Please don't assume I will say anything. I didn't see that part in the wording and it actually does make things more clear.

It was a fair assumption after your below comment, which was either glib or anti choice in the context of this discussion or seriously lacking an understanding of contraception methods.

Mr.H wrote: »

.Women already rightfully do have choice over their own bodies. They can choose not to have unprotected sex if they dont want to get pregnant. I mean if both parties are careful and use protection then you dont get pregnant.

david75

NuMarvel wrote: »

This should put an end to the scaremongering about "abortion on demand up to birth":

Government will seek to ban late-term abortions




I suspected the Government would take this approach, because there was no way they wouldn't include some form of cut off in the legislation. And after reports a few weeks back that they were going to ask the Institute of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists about new guidelines on early delivery, I figured the legislation would use viability.

I'm sure No supporters and campaigners will find something about this development to be overly alarmist about, but it should at least but an end to the "abortion on demand up to birth" scenarios (which were never going to happen anyway).

I think we can all agree this is good news. Clarification that is needed but as NuMarvel said, will probably be ignored.

Zubeneschamali

Mr.H wrote: »

But 2 months from now we all have to get over the result

If repeal passes, I expect 95% of pro-8th voters to forget the whole thing. Abortion will be a private matter between women and their doctors, end of. This is what happened with divorce, contraception, gay marriage - once the change is in place it becomes the new normal.

The 5% are the sign-carrying protestors, who will no doubt continue to hold sign-carrying marches for life, but no-one will care about them.

If repeal does not pass, then nothing will change including the opinions of people like myself who are pro-repeal. I voted against the 8th in 1983, I will vote against it this time, and if it is not repealed, I should be available to vote against it for another 30-40 years or so.

Laneyh

Ismisejack wrote: »

Well I’ve listened to my local doctor, a pro life view she holds and understandably so after what she showed and informed me bout abortion . Let’s make it crystal clear , a 10 week old “fetus” is very much alive and aborting that child is murder and nothing short of it
Well

Assuming your local doctor is based in Ireland she will not have carried out any abortions nor had any patients seek abortions from her.
She may well be privy to some additional medical information that the rest of us are not but if she has pro-life views is unlikely to have liaised with clinics abroad.

Sofiztikated

Ismisejack wrote: »

Well I’ve listened to my local doctor, a pro life view she holds and understandably so after what she showed and informed me bout abortion . Let’s make it crystal clear , a 10 week old “fetus” is very much alive and aborting that child is murder and nothing short of it
Well

And what, exactly, did your local doctor show and inform you?

Hannibal_Smith

Mr.H wrote: »

Hannibal_Smith wrote:

Did you Google? The first thing that came up when I googled feral viability was:-

Yea that's what I meant. Google throws a lot of various answers back.

I do like that doctors will check viability though.

I think it's because it depends on each situation. My eldest was 4 weeks early, they checked the lungs, all was fine so he was grand. A friend of mine had a baby yesterday, 4 weeks early but she needed steroids before the baby was born. Two babies, same timeline premature wise, different action needed.

retro:electro

RobertKK wrote: »

It is ok for you to be upset and not others who have a different opinion?

That is what you are saying, you want double standards, one rule for yourself and another for others who don't share your views.

Irony. Irony everywhere.

I’m not surprised people don’t believe you. There was only one story here used as a stunt, and it’s not the one you think it is.

RobertKK

January wrote: »

Just the names of the heart conditions would be OK really. Its not identifying information to name them.

Why is the exact condition your business?
It is identifying for people who know outside the family and you can’t tell me who posts and doesn’t post on boards.

RobertKK

retro:electro wrote: »

Irony. Irony everywhere.

I’m not surprised people don’t believe you. There was only one story here used as a stunt, and it’s not the one you think it is.

The only stunts are people like you who go around posting crap like that because something doesn’t suit.
People do believe me, it is just a small cohort here who are repeal fanatics that have an issue and don’t believe and that is their problem.

seamus

RobertKK wrote: »

Why is the exact condition your business?
It is identifying for people who know outside the family and you can’t tell me who posts and doesn’t post on boards.

Because people don't believe you Robert.

Practically everyone who has appeared in the media (traditional and online) as a pro-life supporters has made wild, or inaccurate, or completely and deliberately dishonest claims.

At this point, the veracity of all pro-life supporters is called into question because those running the campaign have proven that they do not engage the debate in good faith and are willing to say absolutely anything, no matter how false, to validate their claims.

That is why you are being asked to back up your claims when you post anecdotes that are blatantly pro-life in agenda.

Sofiztikated

Sofiztikated wrote: »

And what, exactly, did your local doctor show and inform you?

Doctors will be able to refuse abortion services to patients based on moral grounds. I belive that it will be a similar situation to a doctor who refuses to prescribe contraception to a patient based on their moral beliefs.

I've no problem with this, everyone is entitled to their beliefs and in such cases the patient may well end up with a doctor that has their medical health as their first priority rather than their personal views.

However if a licenced doctor is providing false information to a patient based on their personal beliefs, as a lot of the prolife posters on here are doing such as quoting false statistics from SPUC, then they should be reported, investigated and if found guilty have their licence revoked.

nozzferrahhtoo

Mr.H wrote: »

So I should stop being friends with them? Meaning I would be shunning them.

That was the meaning of it yes. Did someone suggest it meant something else?

Do let me know when you get around to reading the link I offered. I hope it contains much that relates to the question you asked.

retro:electro

RobertKK wrote: »

The only stunts are people like you who go around posting crap like that because something doesn’t suit.
People do believe me, it is just a small cohort here who are repeal fanatics that have an issue and don’t believe and that is their problem.

Boo hoo. My heart bleeds.

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

The only stunts are people like you who go around posting crap like that because something doesn’t suit.
People do believe me, it is just a small cohort here who are repeal fanatics that have an issue and don’t believe and that is their problem.

Robert you received a mod warning for consistently posting that the miss p case was a stunt by anti choice doctors when this isn't the case and refuted that they would be upset by reading your comments on here.

You can't expect people to not ask the same questions that you have based on one of your posts regarding a member of your family given you were so free with your opinion on the family of miss p.

RobertKK

seamus wrote: »

Because people don't believe you Robert.

Practically everyone who has appeared in the media (traditional and online) as a pro-life supporters has made wild, or inaccurate, or completely and deliberately dishonest claims.

At this point, the veracity of all pro-life supporters is called into question because those running the campaign have proven that they do not engage the debate in good faith and are willing to say absolutely anything, no matter how false, to validate their claims.

That is why you are being asked to back up your claims when you post anecdotes that are blatantly pro-life in agenda.

I don’t need people to believe me. I know I am telling the truth and if others don’t want to believe then it is not my problem they choose to be doubting Thomas’s.

RobertKK

DubInMeath wrote: »

Robert you received a mod warning for consistently posting that the miss p case was a stunt by anti choice doctors when this isn't the case and refuted that they would be upset by reading your comments on here.

You can't expect people to not ask the same questions that you have based on one of your posts regarding a member of your family given you were so free with your opinion on the family of miss p.

I am not posting about that case. Look others are trying to get me,
You bring it up too. Do you not see it is transparent what some are trying to do by trying to get me to talk about it again?
I posted a lot of detail but some people wants intrusive information on a child.