Woman tried to abort viable baby because he had Downs syndrome and baby survived

DoozerT6

I have to be honest and say that if there was a magic futuristic catch-all test that could definitively tell me early in pregnancy if my unborn child had any sort of disability or syndrome that would significantly impact on its life, then I would 100% choose to abort. I've seen enough disabled children and adults where I work to know that that is NOT what I would want IF I HAD THE CHOICE. Having a child born with an unexpected disability of some sort? Unfortunately you have to play the hand you're dealt. But knowing in advance - I wouldn't want the hardship, either for myself or for the poor unfortunate child who may be 100% dependant on 24/7 care, and will continue to need that care long after I am dead. What benefit is that sort of a life to them? Why is it 'be born at all cost' when sometimes that cost is a child who is so disabled that the only benefit to them being born, is the fact that they provide employment to the people hired to look after them?

Sonic Youth

Ivanna Stocky Ball wrote: »

How sincere are those concerned though? Many aren't if they're honest - they just want to take a view that's at odds with the left/feminism. They don't give a sh1t about born children in Syria. And very early on, it's literally not a child. Also there are times when it's necessary on grounds of the mother's health - what about her?

Now I am opposed to it once there's sentience but it's not realistic for a situation where there isn't even early abortion available.

I get you but my conscience can not allow me to support abortion except in exceptional circumstances like rape. And before I'm accused of hating women, I feel the same about men who abandon their children. It's wrong.

As for electro retro, or whatever her name is, gloating about abortion? Man that is some psychopathic ****.

Sonic Youth

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

Jaysus boards has outdone itself this year not even 2 weeks into the new year and we've had:

A traveller bashing thread
A refugee bashing thread
A dole bashing thread
A thread about a rape that some posters tried to minimise
And
A thread bashing abortion.

Will this sh!t ever end? It's like a load of revolving doors of hatred and echo chambers of too much or too little outrage.

People need to grow the fvck up and cop on.

You seem very jaded for such a new user

retro:electro

Sonic Youth wrote: »

As for electro retro, or whatever her name is, gloating about abortion? Man that is some psychopathic ****.

Yeah I love abortions me. Hope they start doing 2for1’s so all my friends can get in on the action too
:rolleyes:

Sonic Youth

retro:electro wrote: »

Yeah I love abortions me. Hope they start doing 2for1’s so all my friends can get in on the action too
:rolleyes:

Knock yourselves out.

SusieBlue

Sonic Youth wrote: »

I get you but my conscience can not allow me to support abortion except in exceptional circumstances like rape. And before I'm accused of hating women, I feel the same about men who abandon their children. It's wrong.

As for electro retro, or whatever her name is, gloating about abortion? Man that is some psychopathic ****.

Well the good news is you aren’t obliged to have an abortion, you don’t have to support it, they aren’t mandatory so you can continue to disagree and even judge those who make that choice.

You just no longer have the power to restrict others from choosing something different to what you would yourself.

Sonic Youth

SusieBlue wrote: »

Well the good news is you aren’t obliged to have an abortion, you don’t have to support it, they aren’t mandatory so you can continue to disagree and even judge those who make that choice.

You just no longer have the power to restrict others from choosing something different to what you would yourself.

Great. Still think it's wrong.

Riesen_Meal

Sonic Youth wrote: »

I get you but my conscience can not allow me to support abortion except in exceptional circumstances like rape. And before I'm accused of hating women, I feel the same about men who abandon their children. It's wrong.

Psst...




I hate to tell you...













Sonic Youth were pro choice also...

Sure you may aswell go and burn their albums while you are at it...

Sonic Youth

Fieldog wrote: »

Psst...




I hate to tell you...













Sonic Youth were pro choice also...

Sure you may aswell go and burn their albums while you are at it...

I don't even like them. First name that popped into my head when I was registering

Riesen_Meal

Sonic Youth wrote: »

I don't even like them. First name that popped into my head when I was registering

Re-registering you mean....

Doff

Awful that the poor baby with downs is now born to a negligent mother, hopefully the social services will interact.

12gauge dave

The left wing

Dont kill the planet
Dont kill animals
Dont kill children in wars
But Do kill this baby inside me.

freshpopcorn

Mod NoteSonic Youth don't post in this thread again!

LorelaiG

Muckka wrote: »

Downe Syndrome isn't wrong.
It's just a different way of being.

Some of the most loveable people I know are Downe Syndrome.
I love Halloween when they all come knocking on my door trick or treating, bless them they're in their 40's I'd say and have their carer's with them.

They bring a lot of joy to people's lives, anyone who's not up to the responsibility of a grown up and decides to abort a feateus because there's a possibility of Downe syndrome are doing so at their own business.

I'd love to know the honest reason behind it, is it lack of empathy, ego, or downright selfish reasons.

I don't know myself, a lot of people think it's because of the care involved and the fact the kid will have problems, and for the rest of their lives they'll be a burden.

Nobody knows what will happen in the future.

I admire people who bring up Downe syndrome kids and look after them until they die, or the offspring passes on.
Love doesn't discriminate either doe's lazyniess or ignorance.

It's dam hard bringing up a kid with Downe syndrome.

I'll probably get a pasting for my post.
But sure we all are entitled to our opinion.

You've got some lovely rose tinted glasses on there. I hate to break it to you but not every person with Down Syndrome (did you see what I did there, I didn't define the person by their disability as you did.) is loveable and brings joy to peoples lives. Some have very severe behavioural problems that make them violent and unable to socialise. Some have such severe behavioural problems that they need to be put into residential care. Also, some have some health problems so severe, including heart, lung, kidney and stomach problems, that they never spend a day of their lives outside of a hospital.

I tip my hat to any parent that is raising a child with DS but if I found myself pregnant with a child and they were diagnosed with DS I'm not 100% sure I'd be able to carry on with the pregnancy because I know the realities of looking after a child with DS full time, my best friend has a child with DS and I love him with all my heart, my aunt's husband is raising his brother who has DS and I love him with all my heart but that doesn't mean if I was in the position of deciding that I'd carry on with the pregnancy.

Timberrrrrrrr

Doff wrote: »

Awful that the poor baby with downs is now born to a negligent mother, hopefully the social services will interact.

Which baby is this? The one in the op?

Poor Uncle Tom

Doff wrote: »

Awful that the poor baby with downs is now born to a negligent mother, hopefully the social services will interact.

Empathy doesn't require reading the article..... :rolleyes::D

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Sonic Youth wrote: »

I get you but my conscience can not allow me to support abortion except in exceptional circumstances like rape. And before I'm accused of hating women, I feel the same about men who abandon their children. It's wrong.

As for electro retro, or whatever her name is, gloating about abortion? Man that is some psychopathic ****.

Well, if you support abortion in the case of rape, the only workable solution to that is what has been adopted by the state. Unless you agree with panels that decide whether the woman was raped...

One eyed Jack

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Empathy doesn't require reading the article..... :rolleyes::D

To be honest though, the article just looks like an attempt by the IT to stir up shìte.

That an abortion was unsuccessful isn’t newsworthy IMO. That a man with Downs Syndrome died in Germany is equally unworthy of making the newspapers in Ireland, which suggests to me at least they really went out of their way to find this one story to report on to keep the conversation about abortion and Downs Syndrome in the Irish public consciousness (or at least whoever still reads that rag I personally wouldn’t wipe my arse with).

Plumbthedepths

feargale wrote:

Now if you will excuse me, I have to deal with a guy who is publicly masturbating outside my house. He says nobody has a right to tell him what he can do with his body.

You're conflating public decency with abortion. Now that's stupid. Careful you don't get splashed. ;-)

Plumbthedepths

SEPT 23 1989 wrote:

Killing a healthy child at 22 weeks disgusts me

Don't do it so.

12gauge dave

12gauge dave wrote: »

The left wing

Dont kill the planet
Dont kill animals
Dont kill children in wars
But Do kill this baby inside me.

The right wing.
The unborn are sacred.
But it's completely justified to
Kill kids including the unborn in military actions
Allow migrants to drown so my taxes aren't spent saving them or have them live in my country
Complain about social welfare to support children.

Sonic Youth

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Mod NoteSonic Youth don't post in this thread again!

Why, what did I do?

12gauge dave

12gauge dave wrote: »

The left wing

Dont kill the planet
Dont kill animals
Dont kill children in wars
But Do kill this baby inside me.

Funnily enough people don't have to adhere or subscribe to the whole ideology of the left wing (if there is a set ideology, that is). You can be pro-choice but be against the grain on other subjects. For example, I was called conservative because I said I was voting for Peter Casey yet I voted YES to Same Sex Marriage.

To me, anyway, the 8th was less about politics and more about the woman.

Rubberchikken

i am pro choice.
if this woman made a decision and got a legal safe abortion and unbiased support then she did nothing wring imo.

Fiftyfilthy

Crock Rock wrote: »

Are you serious?
It wasn't a crisis pregnancy. She was more than happy to be pregnant until she realised the innocent child was disabled.

That’s your opinion and you are entitled to that
For me personally, I would have opted for abortion.

lawred2

tretorn wrote: »

Exactly but when it comes to abortion we are all relying on the professionals involved having ethics.

Sadly where money is involved ethics can go out the window. It probably cost more to inject the baby with potassium and it definitely would cost to look after him alive. Best all around to cover him with a towel and leave him somewhere to die. This is probably what generally happened to the babies "born early' but this particular baby lived.

You can get an abortion in the UK now up to twenty four weeks. Legally speaking you can only get an abortion in Ireland up to twelve weeks, the next arguement that will start is why should irish women wanting abortions at twenty five weeks have to get on a ryanair flight to London. We should have to look after our own abortions, ya,da ya da and hey presto within a few years we will have abortions at twenty five weeks too.

Best to just not think about it, maybe it is for the best. If your mother doesnt want you then who does really.

Yeah best to not concern yourself with other people's problems.

Guy:Incognito

Doff wrote: »

Awful that the poor baby with downs is now born to a negligent mother, hopefully the social services will interact.

Now? It was 21 years ago. He was fostered/adopted ( i skimmed the story earlier)The story is about him dying recently.

seasidedub

How is this news?

In most EU countries all women are offered screening (which is different from pre-natal diagnosis) for Down Syndrome in the form of screening tests such as nuchal translucency (an ultrasound marker which can be seen at about 11 weeks or so). If the screening is positive they are offered pre-natal diagnosis - amniocentesis or CVS which are at about 15 weeks and 12/13 weeks respectively.

If the pre-natal test shows Down Syndrome or any other chromosomal abnormality which can be seen with such a test they are offered the option of a termination. In some countries there is no time limit for genetic/medical conditions even if they are not life-limiting. Obviously this means Down Syndrome as it is not usually life limiting or "fatal" unless there is a heart defect which nowadays can usually be operated on. In other countries there is a time limit of about 25 weeks (Italy, Croatia and some others).

More recently there is non-invasive pre-natal testing, marketed as Panorama or Harmony, this is a non-invasive test requiring the mother to give a blood sample, so no risk of miscarriage. The accuracy is about 98%, so good but not as good as an invasive pre-natal procedure. If it is positive most centres want you to have an invasive procedure to confirm prior to offering a termination.

Panorama and Harmony are both available in Ireland for about 500e and pre-natal diagnosis is available if you want to pay for it as well. The only difference is that in Ireland we don't offer screening or pre-natal diagnosis across the board for women in the maternity services unless there is a specific reason (genetic condition in the family), we don't have a national screening programme for Down Syndrome in other words. But women do opt for these tests and they go to the UK to terminate. I don't know how the OP is so surprised, this happens all the time and I know as I work in the area.

The new legislation only covers abortions for "fatal fetal anomalies" so it does not "allow" women to terminate for Down Syndrome, but they will just go to the UK for that as they have always done....

tretorn

SusieBlue wrote: »

You cannot have an abortion on the grounds of disability or gender in this country, more lies from yourself.
It isn’t an abortion, it’s a termination. If a woman is so ill she has to have her baby born at 23 weeks to save her life she does not need you pontificating about the mental disabilities and visual impairments her child might have.

There is no needle through the heart, the baby is born as every other full term baby is born and ever effort is made to save these children.
These are wanted babies, these are not abortions and it’s completely disengeneous that you keep insisting otherwise.

After 12 weeks terminations will only be allowed in cases of threat to the woman’s life and FFA, these are both awful heartbreaking circumstances for a parent to find themselves in and the fact that you keep misrepresenting the scenario disgusts me.
Women will not just be allowed to decide at 26 weeks to pack it in cause she can’t be arsed being pregnant any more, and it’s very telling of your opinion of women in general that you keep trying to say this is happening.
It isn’t and it doesn’t.

Have you gotten the chance to back up all the various claims you couldn’t find evidence for on the other abortion thread yet??

Who is talking about babies being born at twenty three weeks.

This thread is about aborting a viable foetus at twenty one weeks because a disability was detected, this is the only reason this particular pregnancy was terminated, the baby was unwanted by the mother.

Abortion in this country is not just available for foetuses up to twelve weeks. If you read the legislation there is provision for later terminations if the woman claims her mental health is affected by the pregnancy, under this clause most of the abortions in the UK are carried out and they are carried out up to twenty four weeks. The Abortion Act in the UK started out on the same premise as our Abortion Act 2018 and now you can get a termination at twenty five weeks in the UK if you establish the gender of the child you are carrying and its not the child you want.

This is the ugly reality of abortion and you will probably find in most countries the official legal limit is twelve or thirteen weeks. To get around this Doctor certifies that woman is suicidal, this means he can do the abortion and get his fee and woman can try again for the baby with the right gender or maybe a baby without a disability.

Its her choice right?????????????????????

And of course babies with disabilities will be borted. Downs can now be detected at eleven weeks and this is within the time frame for abortion on demand. Its State policy to just eliminate this disability and in other countries pressure is put on parents to abort once Downs is detected, its assumed its what women and their partners want and its better for society, ie less taxpayers going to support someone who has no economic return to make.

Mrs OBumble

SusieBlue wrote: »

Of course it isn’t, we have laws against murdering living breathing people.
And I’ll save you your next post, no they are not the same thing.
A teenager is not the same as a 20 week gestated pregnancy.

Please keep going. At what point does it change from being morally OK to being morally not OK to kill a fetus / baby / child who you are not able to cope with.

If your answer is "at birth" then please expand on what exactly you mean by that: full-term, full-term less N weeks (how many?), natural delivery, when induction starts, the point in a c-section when the baby is removed from the mother's body?

SusieBlue wrote: »

We don’t provide birth/death certs to babies lost before 22 weeks so even before Repeal won the government didn’t cosider a child lost before that gestation to have even existed.

An interesting expression.

However even though a birth before 24 weeks is only registered if the child/fetus weights 500gm or more - the pregnant person was certainly receiving antenatal care from the government. Clearly the government is acknowledging that something existed.

gctest50

What about that disabled child

12gauge dave

Omackeral wrote: »

Funnily enough people don't have to adhere or subscribe to the whole ideology of the left wing (if there is a set ideology, that is). You can be pro-choice but be against the grain on other subjects. For example, I was called conservative because I said I was voting for Peter Casey yet I voted YES to Same Sex Marriage.

To me, anyway, the 8th was less about politics and more about the woman.

Yes all about the woman indeed, the same woman who had to have sex to become pregnant in the first place. These babies arent appearing in wombs by accident as best to my knowledge?
Its all PRO CHOICE but how about the CHOICE women make when they let a man ejaculate inside her with no contraceptive in place? Should an innocent baby pay the price because of the womans CHOICE?

SusieBlue

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Please keep going. At what point does it change from being morally OK to being morally not OK to kill a fetus / baby / child who you are not able to cope with.

If your answer is "at birth" then please expand on what exactly you mean by that: full-term, full-term less N weeks (how many?), natural delivery, when induction starts, the point in a c-section when the baby is removed from the mother's body?

What’s with the inquisition? I don’t have to justify my position to you, at all. I’m not here to answer your various queries ad nauseum.
You’re post reads like a leaving cert exam question.
If you think you are going to catch me out with some sort of ‘aha, gotcha!!’ moment, you’re wrong.

To answer your question, I am comfortable with the current 12 week limit, because there is no consciousness or sentience at that gestation.
I feel this is sufficient to deal with the majority of cases.

An interesting expression.

However even though a birth before 24 weeks is only registered if the child/fetus weights 500gm or more - the pregnant person was certainly receiving antenatal care from the government. Clearly the government is acknowledging that something existed.

And your point is?
My point is that it isn’t legally a child, which is why it isn’t comparable to murdering a teenager, which you tried to imply it was.
The government doesn’t acknowledge them as people, hence they don’t issue death or birth certs.

12gauge dave

12gauge dave wrote: »

Yes all about the woman indeed, the same woman who had to have sex to become pregnant in the first place. These babies arent appearing in wombs by accident as best to my knowledge?
Its all PRO CHOICE but how about the CHOICE women make when they let a man ejaculate inside her with no contraceptive in place? Should an innocent baby pay the price because of the womans CHOICE?

You're familiar with the concept of unplanned pregnancies aren't you? Also, you're not worth debating if you keep using the phrase ''innocent baby''. There's no evil babies, well, fetuses so the term is a bit redundant. You're hardly going for the emotional response are ya?

Listen, abortions aren't a celebration whatsoever. Nobody actively thinks ''Yes, I'm getting a termination''. Probably shouldn't have to say that but then again...

retro:electro

12gauge dave wrote: »

Yes all about the woman indeed, the same woman who had to have sex to become pregnant in the first place. These babies arent appearing in wombs by accident as best to my knowledge?
Its all PRO CHOICE but how about the CHOICE women make when they let a man ejaculate inside her with no contraceptive in place? Should an innocent baby pay the price because of the womans CHOICE?

No better than you ejaculating a load of shlte across my screen. Where were you last May? Your argument is so original I cannot believe you weren’t snapped up by campaigners

nozzferrahhtoo

Crock Rock wrote: »

Most people understand a crisis pregnancy as something that was unplanned and not expected.

What is it with the users in the last week turning psychic since the first abortion was announced? They suddenly all know what "most people" are thinking. We had one user, also posting on this thread now, who claimed to know the position of the people who did NOT vote in the referendum.

To be honest I have not many many.... or perhaps even any.... but certainly not "most"........... people who think "crisis pregnancy" is limited to what you describe above.

There is a huge diversity in backgrounds and narratives that lead up to people seeking abortion. And not all crisis pregnancies are unplanned or unexpected. There are women for example who planned and expected the pregnancy but upon falling pregnant their circumstances changed. A partner left or died. The lost their job. Medical or health issues changed. Financial situation suddenly heavily feel apart. And so on.

Crock Rock wrote: »

but this innocent child was murdered at a viable stage. It's a disgrace and amounts to murder and eugenics. People give out about Hitler and the master race, but this is what the woman was carrying out.

I do not think you know what eugenics means to be honest. You have misused it more than once on the thread already.

That said however, this story happened over 20 years ago. Here in the more modern world, and hopefully more and more in the future, we will be diagnosis conditions like DS earlier. We will be enforcing better medical ethics and procedures in abortion than what we saw here so what a "failed" abortion does not go unnoticed.

There are tragic aspects to the story you are plucking out of history here. But moaning and whinging about them helps no one and nothing. Learning from it and improving procedures, legislation, discourse and ethics to reflect it does help. And makes the story, and the life of the baby in question, mean something.

Crock Rock wrote: »

Abortion at 12 weeks is fine, but for disability it's disgusting eugenics and murder.

Along with Eugenics you also appear not to know what "murder" means.

That said however, one wonders if the second half of your sentence tracks with the first half. If disabilities can be diagnosed before 12 weeks then by your sentence such an abortion would be BOTH fine AND disgusting.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

When people can no longer hide behind the sentience argument to justify their taking of a human life they have no option but to show you what they really are about.

Not "hiding behind" any argument. They, myself included, are standing happily and proudly beside it and are happy to explain who they are, what their position is, and why.

But I guess it is easier to declare people are "hiding behind" their arguments than actually try and rebut their arguments or even understand them..... which, thus far, you appear to have been unable to do.

suicide_circus wrote: »

Eugenics
noun

the science of improving a population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.

Exactly! And what is why the story the OP is talking about it NOT Eugenics, despite him misusing the term more than once to claim it was.

Muckka wrote: »

I'd love to know the honest reason behind it, is it lack of empathy, ego, or downright selfish reasons.

Or the opposite, maybe it is the knowledge and empathy of knowing what it requires to care for such a person and give them the life they would deserve. And upon realising they are someone entirely unable to do that, they think it is better for all concerned, including the potential human person in development, not to continue with the process to create them

Muckka wrote: »

I admire people who bring up Downe syndrome kids and look after them until they die, or the offspring passes on.

As do I! But I also admire the people who consider the situation and openly and honestly decide they are not able to do what it takes, and decide against it.

Admiring one, does not preclude admiring the other. They are not by definition mutually exclusive, even if you find them to be at a personal level.

eagle eye

If my wife and I were in the situation I'd be hoping she had an abortion.
We've discussed it and she thinks she would have an abortion.
It would have the potential to break up our marriage because I'm not willing to.put up with the hardship or put my son through the hardship of dealing with a child with down syndrome.

tretorn

I wouldnt admire anyone who aborted a Downs syndrome baby.

I would think I would hate to have the taking of life on my conscience and then I would go about my day.

jcd5971

It's an easy thing to judge and say this woman is this or that or the other thing,

but having seen a friend basically wither away over the years from providing 24/7 care to a disabled child,

well I'd not wish it on my worst enemy and I definitely would not sit in judgment of a woman who has had to make such an unimaginablely difficult decision.

Ash.J.Williams

Crock Rock wrote: »

To be honest I am sickened and nearly brought to tears at the thought of this. I am pro-choice up to 12 weeks and so are the majority of the Irish electorate, as we voted yes to repeal.

However, I am staunchly against abortion on grounds of disability, because for a starters, disabilities are not visible until after the 12 weeks normally and a lot are only really visible when the baby is viable and can survive ex-utero.

This German woman wasn't suffering a crisis pregnancy, she was happy enough to be pregnant but when she realised that she was carrying a boy with Down's Syndrome she chose to kill and innocent child with a disability.

To reiterate I am fully pro-choice up to 12 weeks, but not late term for the grounds of disability. It's eugenics and nothing more. This is something that Adolf Hitler would have done to get a purer Europe.

The innocent baby was placed in a towel aside and doctors only by chance realised that the innocent child was still alive. The "mother" refused to care for the innocent child and instead the innocent child was taken in by loving and caring foster parents.

In my opinion, abortion, especially late term ones on frivolous grounds are disgusting and amount to nothing but murder.

https/ww[/SPOILER IZE]w.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/german-man-who-survived-abortion-dies-aged-21-1.3752247

Welcome to boards

alexmalalex

Crock Rock wrote: »

To be honest I am sickened and nearly brought to tears at the thought of this. I am pro-choice up to 12 weeks and so are the majority of the Irish electorate, as we voted yes to repeal.

However, I am staunchly against abortion on grounds of disability, because for a starters, disabilities are not visible until after the 12 weeks normally and a lot are only really visible when the baby is viable and can survive ex-utero.

This German woman wasn't suffering a crisis pregnancy, she was happy enough to be pregnant but when she realised that she was carrying a boy with Down's Syndrome she chose to kill and innocent child with a disability.

To reiterate I am fully pro-choice up to 12 weeks, but not late term for the grounds of disability. It's eugenics and nothing more. This is something that Adolf Hitler would have done to get a purer Europe.

The innocent baby was placed in a towel aside and doctors only by chance realised that the innocent child was still alive. The "mother" refused to care for the innocent child and instead the innocent child was taken in by loving and caring foster parents.

In my opinion, abortion, especially late term ones on frivolous grounds are disgusting and amount to nothing but murder.

https/www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/german-man-who-survived-abortion-dies-aged-21-1.3752247

This is exactly the can of worms that the referendum result has now opened up...and I'm entirely with the OP. It is morally repugnant. Anytime someone from the pro-life side raised such issues, they were accused of being emotive and scaremongering. But it is the reality folks. We have opened Pandora's box.

eviltwin

eagle eye wrote: »

If my wife and I were in the situation I'd be hoping she had an abortion.
We've discussed it and she thinks she would have an abortion.
It would have the potential to break up our marriage because I'm not willing to.put up with the hardship or put my son through the hardship of dealing with a child with down syndrome.

Would you insist she sees a psychiatrist first? Just in case she's making a decision she regrets like...

LirW

Are people aware that this decision in the majority of cases involves a couple that might even have children?
Diagnosis Down syndrome can mean a lot, it could be you're going to have a child that has mild downs and it will be able to live quite an independent life and will be able to work. It could also mean that the child has major health issues and will need 24/7 care with countless hospital visits or it might have severe behavioural issues and can barely handle social scenarios. The crux is that you don't know the case until the child is born.
What are you going to do when you already have children? If the worst case happens are you willing to put their lives on the back burner because your sick, disabled child's needs will always be your first priority?
Chances are that your relationship will break down and one parent will end up having to shoulder all the work alone.
You'll have to cope with a severely disabled child until either the child dies or you die (what happens to the child then?)

Maybe people who are really that concerned should also advocate for people having children earlier because age is a significant factor in the risk of down syndrome.

Couples facing this decision take an awful lot of scenarios into account, how anyone thinks that this is a remotely easy decision is beyond me.

retro:electro

alexmalalex wrote: »

This is exactly the can of worms that the referendum result has now opened up...and I'm entirely with the OP. It is morally repugnant. Anytime someone from the pro-life side raised such issues, they were accused of being emotive and scaremongering. But it is the reality folks. We have opened Pandora's box.

Erm this happened 21 years ago in a different country

BoJack Horseman

Pregnant women screen the in-utero child for this very purpose.

jay0109

If a baby can survive outside the womb, as this one did, is an attempted or actual abortion of a baby at that age effectively murder?
if not, please explain your rationale?

alexmalalex

retro:electro wrote: »

Erm this happened 21 years ago in a different country

Yes, and if I raised this during the referendum campaign you would have accused me of being emotive, scaremongering, etc...

nozzferrahhtoo

jay0109 wrote: »

If a baby can survive outside the womb, as this one did, is an attempted or actual abortion of a baby at that age effectively murder?
if not, please explain your rationale?

The word murder means to kill unlawfully. So if the procedure was legal int he jurisdiction where it was performed, then no it was not murder. If it was not legal, then yes it was murder. Now sure what other rationale can be explained there?

If you want to drop the emotive word "murder" and discuss whether it was ethical or not, then we can have a more useful discussion. For me however the ethics of abortion have nothing to do with physical/medical viability.

Sardonicat

12gauge dave wrote: »

Omackeral wrote: »

Funnily enough people don't have to adhere or subscribe to the whole ideology of the left wing (if there is a set ideology, that is). You can be pro-choice but be against the grain on other subjects. For example, I was called conservative because I said I was voting for Peter Casey yet I voted YES to Same Sex Marriage.

To me, anyway, the 8th was less about politics and more about the woman.

Yes all about the woman indeed, the same woman who had to have sex to become pregnant in the first place. These babies arent appearing in wombs by accident as best to my knowledge?
Its all PRO CHOICE but how about the CHOICE women make when they let a man ejaculate inside her with no contraceptive in place? Should an innocent baby pay the price because of the womans CHOICE?

Dirty, filthy, filthy, dirty, wicked, wicked Jezebels
JEZEBELS!
/froths at the mouth.