Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Kidchameleon

....... wrote: »

In Ireland please.

No, I have no examples of it in Ireland. Would you answer the question if it was an imaginary scenario?

*edit* Also, the fact that there may be no examples of the scenario having happened in Ireland does not mean that it will never happen. So I believe it is something that is worthy of discussion as we may be faced with such a situation in the future. I suppose you'll leave it till then? Or tell me statistically it will not happen? Anything to avoid the question....

.......

Kidchameleon wrote: »

No, I have no examples of it in Ireland. Would you answer the question if it was an imaginary scenario?

I went back and answered - I edited my post.

Kidchameleon

....... wrote: »

In Ireland please?

Im not really sure what point you are trying to score here?

Is it so you can say HAHA you are NOT really pro choice! if someone says a girl has to stay pregnant after a certain point?

I think its reasonable for *most* pro choice people to have a cut off point and that cut off is generally determined by the possibility of the fetus surviving outside the womb and the presence of brain activity. We dont have an "exact" date for that so it seems safe to say lets have a law that cuts off around 20 weeks or so, because we do know for sure that there is no brain activity or the ability to survive outside the womb. So there might be the odd edge case where a 20 week old fetus survives, but the probability is that they wont.

Does that mean that victims of rape who are 24 weeks pregnant may be refused an abortion? Maybe - but is that relevant? Probably not because although possible its a rare occurence and hard cases make bad laws. You dont legislate on the extreme cases - it would be silly to do so.

I feel like you are just pushing extreme hypotheticals to create a reaction as opposed to have a discussion?

Or you are trying to push an extreme position that YOU call pro choice but that is not representative of most pro choice people and therefore say "I think this extreme thing is ok and I am pro choice hence pro choice means this extreme thing".

I'm not trying to score points at all. I agree with you that it would be a rare scenario (it is interesting that some countries such as Latvia have an extended window only in cases of rape to allow for trauma concerns). Thank you for your honest answer.

Can I ask you this? Would you be against legislating for on demand abortion up to 24 weeks?

I feel it is relevant to a discussion thread in a post repeal Ireland. Who knows, perhaps there will be groups pushing for it in the future? I certainly heard murmurings for it during the referendum. Note also that some European countries have less restrictive access to abortion already such as Netherlands, Sweden and the UK.

smacl

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Well according to AOC the world will end in 12 year's, so it doesn't matter what conspiracy theories Gemma spouts.
AOC is bat **** crazy

She's basing her assertions on this UN report as described in Newsweek here. From that article;

Ocasio-Cortez introduced the Green New Deal this month along with Democratic Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts. The ambitious plan would have the U.S. economy focus on renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuel and coal. The plan would also work to strengthen labor laws, health care, access to higher education, housing and public ownership of certain institutions.

The deal, which some estimate could cost $1 trillion, follows a United Nations report that predicted we have only 12 years to limit or reverse the effects of climate change before its impact causes unmanageable drought, floods, extreme heat and life-threatening weather events.

Her choice of language is intentionally alarmist, but the fundamentals underlying her argument are reasonable and well researched. In my opinion/ she's certainly orders of magnitude more rational than anyone basing their arguments around ancient religious texts and beliefs.

smacl

Charles Ingles wrote: »

You may not believe but have a bit of respect for people of faith

With respect, if you come onto an atheist forum with arguments based around your religious beliefs you're going to run into a bit of flak. We all respect a persons right to hold a religious belief, but may not respect the belief itself, particularly when it foisted upon us and used as an excuse to compromise other internationally agreed upon and respected human rights. It is worth remembering that when you talk about 'God', that's your god, not mine.

Bannasidhe

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Oh my god you are quoting AOC and I get mocked for supporting Gemma o Doherty.
AOC is off the charts crazy

Cabaal wrote: »

Amusing but false
Nobody wins at crazy bingo like Gemma does,

... [snip]

Pherekydes wrote: »

You forgot intensive chemtrailing. :pac:

Igotadose wrote: »

AOC is one of the sanest politicians in decades. ...[snip]
.

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Well according to AOC the world will end in 12 year's, so it doesn't matter what conspiracy theories Gemma spouts.
AOC is bat **** crazy

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

According to many republicans the earth is less than 10,000 years old, a man spoke to a burning bush, a virgin gave birth and a 900 year old man parted the sea.


Now thats batshyte crazy!

Mod: As interesting as it may be to discuss the merits of the redoubtable AOC as compared to the doubtable GO'D please to return to the topic at hand. Thanks.

Charles Ingles

smacl wrote: »

With respect, if you come onto an atheist forum with arguments based around your religious beliefs you're going to run into a bit of flak. We all respect a persons right to hold a religious belief, but may not respect the belief itself, particularly when it foisted upon us and used as an excuse to compromise other internationally agreed upon and respected human rights. It is worth remembering that when you talk about 'God', that's your god, not mine.

I come to this forum because I like debate exchanging opinions, and to try and have an open debate.
Can I ask you a question if you don't mind, do you believe in an after life or when you die is that it?
That's why I'm so passionate about abortion I believe we all have a soul even the tiniest of babies in a mother's womb.
Also no point in us all living in echo chambers agreeing with each other

smacl

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I come to this forum because I like debate exchanging opinions, and to try and have an open debate.

Pretty much the same as most of us there I think and what this site is all about.

Can I ask you a question if you don't mind, do you believe in an after life or when you die is that it?

I'm of the opinion that when I die that's it, no going on, no coming back.

That's why I'm so passionate about abortion I believe we all have a soul even the tiniest of babies in a mother's womb. Also no point in us all living in echo chambers agreeing with each other

That's fine, but that is your belief system and not one shared by everyone else. The problem I have with the religiously informed pro-life argument is that it gives this subjective belief precedence over a woman's right to bodily autonomy. Recent referendums have illustrated that most people in this country tend to vote in a secular manner, so while they may share your belief to a greater or lesser extent, they respect and give precedent the rights of other people who may hold different values.

I appreciate the argument of ensoulment for some Christians, but it is clearly unreasonable to attempt to apply it to those that do not share that belief. How for example would you feel if your basic human rights or those of people you loved were compromised on the basis of a belief from Hindu or Islam?

The right to hold a religious belief is due respect, the belief itself is not.

Kidchameleon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

At 24 weeks a fetus is viable in a small number of cases. How can we tell which ones are not viable?

Your starting to contradict yourself a bit here, you apparently known a person who was born at 24 weeks and is a healthy youngster. You spent some time arguing the point with a poster where you infer that the survival rate was higher.

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

At 24 weeks a fetus is viable in a small number of cases. How can we tell which ones are not viable?

None of them are actually viable at 24 weeks. Some of them can be kept alive using life support and resuscitation techniques until they get to a stage where they do become viable, ie can breathe, feed etc without the help of machines and intravenous drips etc.

Basically science has allowed us to substitute a hi-tech cot (and lots of medical procedures) for those last 15/16 weeks in the womb. And even then the majority of those that survive at 24 weeks have significant ongoing health issues.

It's also becoming clear that among "older" premature babies, around 28-32 weeks, who seemed to have fewer health consequences actually have far more behavioural and learning difficulties than had previously been recorded.

So no, I don't consider a 24 week baby to be viable really. It's on the cusp of viability, and if it were my baby (not talking about abortion here, just extreme prematurity) I'm not sure I'd want it to survive if the price it paid for that was to be permanently disabled. Which is the likeliest outcome.

aloyisious

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Response to post #638

You also said in this post that there is no current evidence to say a 24 week old fetus is sentient. That is just factually incorrect. If a child is born at 24 weeks, he or she is most certainly sentient.

Pardon me for pointing out that a live born child is no longer a foetus [or unborn child if you like] therefore has a greater chance of responding to a sentience test than a foetus in a woman's womb given that they are in visibly different quarters when it comes to testing for sentience. Also being blunt here, even being birthed is no guarantee that a child may be in any way sentient.

aloyisious

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I come to this forum because I like debate exchanging opinions, and to try and have an open debate.

That's why I'm so passionate about abortion I believe we all have a soul even the tiniest of babies in a mother's womb.

I haven't come across the foetus has a soul angle in respect to abortion. Are you now putting forward for consideration that the possible presence of a soul in a foetus may be a ground for a ban on abortion? That is so different from the sentience angle being argued by Kidchameleon, another debater here.

I know that you have asserted that you are of Christian faith and that you also hold a belief that abortions should be allowed in some circumstances with respect to the independent viability of some foetus after birth. It seems to me that you may be conflicted over the three circumstances set out above by you.

splinter65

From the Irish Independent

Indo wrote:

An external investigation has been ordered at the National Maternity Hospital into the circumstances involving an abortion after a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality.

It is understood a termination of pregnancy was carried out after a screening test was performed privately at the hospital.

The findings indicated the baby had a possible diagnosis of Trisomy 18, also called Edwards syndrome which is recognised as a fatal foetal abnormality under the The Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act - which came into force in January.

A spokesman for the National Maternity Hospital said it does not comment on individual cases.

He said he can confirm that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists will conduct a review of a recent case at the hospital.

It is alleged that not all stages of the test results were available before the couple were in a position to make an informed decision.

The results of the final part of the definitive findings of the screening process had not been returned from the UK when the couple were told of the diagnosis.

The couple went ahead with the termination but later learned that the test results later were negative for the anomaly.

It is understood the pregnancy was terminated in the first trimester.

The issue has been brought to the attention of the Minister for Health Simon Harris, who has been called on carry out a a statutory investigation.

The external review is to be carried out by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK, who will nominate experts.

I can’t see that the parents have any cause of action against NMH. The abortion was entirely their desicion alone. Abortion is legal here now and the 8th amendment would have saved this baby. FFA is not a medical condition it’s a legal thing. My condolences nonetheless.

Plumbthedepths

splinter65 wrote:

Abortion is legal here now and the 8th amendment would have saved this baby.

The same 8th amendment that cost a woman her life.

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

I can’t see that the parents have any cause of action against NMH. The abortion was entirely their desicion alone. Abortion is legal here now and the 8th amendment would have saved this baby. FFA is not a medical condition it’s a legal thing. My condolences nonetheless.

FFA is indeed medical, and not a legal thing, your post is your attempt at grandstanding, not actual compassion or sorrow at a medical misdiagnosis.

splinter65

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

The same 8th amendment that cost a woman her life.

Are you referring to Mrs Halapanaveer who died of sepsis through medical neglect?
Do pro choice intend to continue dragging this dead lady out every time there’s an Irish abortion cock up like this?
The 8th amendment would have saved this baby’s life. These parents are bereaved because the 8th amendment was removed.

SusieBlue

splinter65 wrote: »

Are you referring to Mrs Halapanaveer who died of sepsis through medical neglect?
Do pro choice intend to continue dragging this dead lady out every time there’s an Irish abortion cock up like this?
The 8th amendment would have saved this baby’s life. These parents are bereaved because the 8th amendment was removed.

It’s an absolute disgrace that you continue to deny the responsibility the 8th amendment had in the death of Savita. Shame on you.

THE NEGLIGENCE COULD NEVER HAD OCCURRED IF SHE HAD BEEN GRANTED THE ABORTION SHE REQUESTED ONE WEEK PRIOR TO HER DEATH.

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

Are you referring to Mrs Halapanaveer who died of sepsis through medical neglect?
Do pro choice intend to continue dragging this dead lady out every time there’s an Irish abortion cock up like this?
The 8th amendment would have saved this baby’s life. These parents are bereaved because the 8th amendment was removed.

It's not an abortion cock up as you put it, the rest of your post is grandstanding.

end of the road

DubInMeath wrote: »

It's not an abortion cock up as you put it, the rest of your post is grandstanding.

it's not. it's a genuine view that has come from a good place. i know this having read this poster's posts on the issue throughout the discussions.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

it's not. it's a genuine view that has come from a good place. i know this having read this poster's posts on the issue throughout the discussions.

Really, because your thanking posters in the the following thread who are calling for people who have had abortions or support pro choice to be murdered

Also have screen shots with your thanking the poster just in case they magically disappear

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...4&postcount=97

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/show...&postcount=117

So sort of goes against your earlier statements that you don't thank such posts or agree with such posters.

As for the poster in question your inaccurate to say the least in relation to their views.

splinter65

SusieBlue wrote: »

It’s an absolute disgrace that you continue to deny the responsibility the 8th amendment had in the death of Savita. Shame on you.

THE NEGLIGENCE COULD NEVER HAD OCCURRED IF SHE HAD BEEN GRANTED THE ABORTION SHE REQUESTED ONE WEEK PRIOR TO HER DEATH.

Shouting in capitals doesn’t make you right Susie. It’s just your opinion that’s all. Any comment to make on this latest debacle?

Plumbthedepths

splinter65 wrote:

Shouting in capitals doesn’t make you right Susie. It’s just your opinion that’s all. Any comment to make on this latest debacle?

How is it a debacle? The couple in question sought an abortion based on the information available at the time. The abortion was a success, hindsight of course is always 20/20

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

Shouting in capitals doesn’t make you right Susie. It’s just your opinion that’s all. Any comment to make on this latest debacle?

Your ignoring the fact that the 8th was proven to have been a contributing factor in her death and that the couple who your attempting to grandstand on may have travelled to the UK to obtain an abortion based on the medical misdiagnosis they received if the 8th was not repealed. So the baby would not be alive if repeal was unsuccessful as your claiming as a fact.

drunkmonkey

"It is understood the pregnancy was terminated in the second trimester"

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/news/investigation-ordered-into-abortion-at-national-maternity-hospital-38119970.html

That's f'n terrible. Harris's head should be on a spike along with whoever advised those parents without 100% confirmation the baby didn't stand a chance.
I can't imagine how much it hurts to lose a child but like this, never ever should it happen.

Plumbthedepths

drunkmonkey wrote:

That's f'n terrible. Harris's head should be on a spike along with whoever advised those parents without 100% confirmation the baby didn't stand a chance. I can't imagine how much it hurts to lose a child but like this, never ever should it happen.

Did Harris carry out the abortion? I don't like the guy or his politics but how is he to blame?

drunkmonkey

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Did Harris carry out the abortion? I don't like the guy or his politics but how is he to blame?

He championed abortion. I wonder does he still hold the same view after having a child. He's the minister for health, he's a disaster. The proper checks and balances should have been in place, they weren't, his head goes on the spike.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

He championed abortion. I wonder does he still hold the same view after having a child. He's the minister for health, he's a disaster. The proper checks and balances should have been in place, they weren't, his head goes on the spike.

You would have to include most politicians in that case from all major parties except the alt right ones as they all supported repeal.

Also your ignoring the fact that the couple could have travelled for an abortion based on the misdiagnosis

drunkmonkey

He's the minister for health, buck stops with him. It's 100% his fault the proper mechanisms weren't in place to prevent it happening.

drunkmonkey

DubInMeath wrote: »

Also your ignoring the fact that the couple could have travelled for an abortion based on the misdiagnosis

Let them travel with a half arsed diagnosis it shouldn't have happened here, your ignoring the fact they may have let nature take it's course and have a healthy child right now. One sided assumptions are bullcrap to be honest. A healthy child is dead, deal in facts.

aloyisious

drunkmonkey wrote: »

He's the minister for health, buck stops with him. It's 100% his fault the proper mechanisms weren't in place to prevent it happening.

What are these proper mechanisms?

Cabaal

drunkmonkey wrote: »

He championed abortion. I wonder does he still hold the same view after having a child. He's the minister for health, he's a disaster. The proper checks and balances should have been in place, they weren't, his head goes on the spike.

And what if it was the other way round?
what if the fetus had edwords but could not have an abortion. Who's head gets put on a spike then?

volchitsa

splinter65 wrote: »

An external investigation has been ordered at the National Maternity Hospital into the circumstances involving an abortion after a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality.

It is understood a termination of pregnancy was carried out after a screening test was performed privately at the hospital.

The findings indicated the baby had a possible diagnosis of Trisomy 18, also called Edwards syndrome which is recognised as a fatal foetal abnormality under the The Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act - which came into force in January.

A spokesman for the National Maternity Hospital said it does not comment on individual cases.

He said he can confirm that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists will conduct a review of a recent case at the hospital.

It is alleged that not all stages of the test results were available before the couple were in a position to make an informed decision.

The results of the final part of the definitive findings of the screening process had not been returned from the UK when the couple were told of the diagnosis.

The couple went ahead with the termination but later learned that the test results later were negative for the anomaly.

It is understood the pregnancy was terminated in the first trimester.

The issue has been brought to the attention of the Minister for Health Simon Harris, who has been called on carry out a a statutory investigation.

The external review is to be carried out by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK, who will nominate experts.


I can’t see that the parents have any cause of action against NMH. The abortion was entirely their desicion alone. Abortion is legal here now and the 8th amendment would have saved this baby. FFA is not a medical condition it’s a legal thing. My condolences nonetheless.

The couple should not have been given the diagnosis without all the information being available to them. It's a contradiction of the term "informed decision" - they weren't fully informed.

But trying to use this to say the 8th would have saved the baby is cynical exploitation - the only way that might have happened is by assuming the UK hospital would not have given the partial diagnosis.

Saying a ban on abortion would have saved this baby is like saying a ban on tonsillectomies would have saved the child who died during one in the UK a few years back.

Possible malpractice is the issue here amd needs to be investigated. And while I'm all for accountability, blaming the Minsiter for Health seems a bit much TBF.

smacl

drunkmonkey wrote: »

A healthy child is dead, deal in facts.

A healthy child is not dead. A 15 week old fetus is not a healthy child. An unnecessary termination took place due to a misdiagnosis of FFA. Those are the facts.

Charles Ingles

Very sad the case of misdiagnosis and the resulting death of the young baby in the national maternity hospital.
Heartbreaking for the family, we need to review at the legislation, one case is too many.
And just dismissing a baby as a fetus is something I don't understand.
It's a baby once a woman is pregnant it's a baby

amcalester

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Very sad the case of misdiagnosis and the resulting death of the young baby in the national maternity hospital.
Heartbreaking for the family, we need to review at the legislation, one case is too many.
And just dismissing a baby as a fetus is something I don't understand.
It's a baby once a woman is pregnant it's a baby

One of the oft repeated lines from the anti-choice brigade during the referendum was that we shouldn’t legislate for the hard cases because “hard cases make bad laws” - interesting that now you are calling for a change in legislation to account for a hard case.

Back then 1 case was not enough now it’s too many. More contradictions it seems.

Very sad what happened, hopefully the review will identify who or what was at fault and the necessary steps are taken to stop it happening again.

smacl

Charles Ingles wrote: »

It's a baby once a woman is pregnant it's a baby

That's your opinion, repeating it twice doesn't make it any more true. Personally I also find the opportunistic exploitation of this couple's loss by those with a pro-life agenda repugnant.

amcalester

amcalester wrote: »

Very sad what happened, hopefully the review will identify who or what was at fault and the necessary steps are taken to stop it happening again.

It's more than just "very sad". Sad is your football team losing a match.

This is a life altering moment for the parents. Their lives will now have a clear division between when this happened. What compensation could the state ever give them to make up for this? It's an utter tragedy (and to be expected from our hopeless HSE unfortunately).

Very sad doesn't begin to cover the loss they have suffered.

MFPM

smacl wrote: »

That's your opinion, repeating it twice doesn't make it any more true. Personally I also find the opportunistic exploitation of this couple's loss by those with a pro-life agenda repugnant.

anti-choice is far more appropriate.

MFPM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

He's the minister for health, buck stops with him. It's 100% his fault the proper mechanisms weren't in place to prevent it happening.

That's ridiculous. The issue here is an error in the testing procedure and there needs to be an investigation as to how that happened and to ensure lessons are learned.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You were discussing something with another poster in this post, it had nothing to do with me so I have not ignored you. I am not sure why you have highlighted that post for me.

Yes that was my error. I meant 639 the post directly after it. My bad. But at the same time you should have been able to spot that minor error yourself if you had cared to. 639 was a large post, hard to miss, but you ignored it in it's entirety. Then and now.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

There is not really a question in that post so I have not really ignored you.

Oh bull. The lack of a question mark does not reduce it from being a two way conversation. A conversation you ignored and dropped out of entirely by ignoring just about everything in the post. Then and now.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The closest thing to a question that I can respond to was you pondering what discussing vegetative patients has to do with abortion. Well in my opinion, people who are in a vegetative state can be a useful analogy to explore the topic of abortion. Said comparison has been used for years leading up to the referendum by many people. I guess if you read perhaps posts 620-650 or there about, you will see the context of why the analogy was made.

I too find them a useful comparison to a degree. But only in so far as making the distinction between a conscious sentient entity, and being conscious in the moment. In other words the sole benefit of the comparison is to show why the comparison does NOT hold at all.

A coma patient is a sentient entity. A conscious entity. They may not be actively conscious in that moment, but they are not required to be. Just like someone who is asleep. If I murder you asleep or awake it is still murder. You level of consciousness in that moment, being asleep, has ZERO to do with the morality or ethics of it. So why should it be for a coma patient for example????

The distinction with a fetus in abortion however is the fetus is not conscious, has never been, and simply does not have that faculty at all according to all the science we currently understand on the matter.

There is no comparison there. Yet as you point out, people insisted on making one anyway during the referendum debates.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Firstly I do not speak for Ben Shapiro, I do not follow his work, I have seen a few videos of him debating and that about it. I find his voice a little annoying actually. I posted a video showing Ben talking about abortion and he did not seem to bring his faith into it.

He brought something just as bad into it. Outright, patent, demonstrable lies. Very similar. "Faith" tends to be claims about things the speaker has absolutely ZERO evidence for. Making claims about reality that you have no basis for is akin to lying to me. YOU.... no one else.... YOU cited this video and I think you further eroded your own credibility by doing so given how dishonest and distortion based the speakers points were. I would, as should you with even the minimum application of self awareness, be mightily embarrassed to have been seen to cite such a crock of guff and dishonesty.

If you find you are not embarrassed to have done so, I can only prescribe a serious and very elongated bout of introspection on the matter.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You also said in this post that there is no current evidence to say a 24 week old fetus is sentient. That is just factually incorrect. If a child is born at 24 weeks, he or she is most certainly sentient.

Not so at all. There is no evidence for this. Could you substantiate this claim please? Maybe with an introduction defining what you think "sentient" means in this context. Clue: It has nothing to do with viability.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Lastly, I never said every abortion was the result of an unplanned pregnancy.

Nor, I trust you will note, did I claim you did. So I am not sure what this statement is for other than filler.

What I did say and do however was point out that while we are talking about the efficacy rates of contraception.... it also pays to remember that that is only part of the big picture. Many people seeking abortion are doing so despite having a PLANNED pregnancy. And we should not lose sight of that while discussing unplanned ones.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I think whatever way I put it, people will avoid answering. It has happened on thread already.

I certainly will not avoid answering. I think you are only maintaining the narrative that people will avoid answering by only targeting the users you already believe will. Without discussing it with the ones who have not yet dodged one of your questions EVER. Such as me.

My position on it is quite clear. The moment the fetus reaches a stage of development at which we have any reason to believe it has become a sentient agent, then it has rights. And the mother no longer has the right to kill it. I would certainly therefore deny her that right.

What I would allow for however is for her not to have to carry the entire pregnancy. The moment we have reason to believe we can terminate the pregnancy and maintain the life of the child.... we should do so at her request.

See? Not so hard to answer now was it? You can now openly and honestly and loudly retract your claim we will avoid answering you.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Can I ask you this? Would you be against legislating for on demand abortion up to 24 weeks?

I am comfortable with 12, 16, even 20 weeks. At 24 weeks it starts to get grey. Actually we have good reason to STILL think the fetus has not attained sentience at that point but I am less inclined to stand by it as a scientific fact. So I would certainly start to get uncomfortable around then. But neither would I lose sleep if I woke up in an Ireland with 24 week abortion tomorrow.

Thankfully however the near totality of choice based abortion ALWAYS happens.... we are talking 95-98% of the time..... in or before week 16. Actually over 90% in or before week 12. And this statistic appears to hold true in countries with NO legal abortion, in countries with 24 week legal abortion, or in countries like Canada with no theoretical limits on abortion.

So in THAT light I would not really legislate for 24 weeks as it is pretty much not required except for some rare outlier cases which we could legislate for separately, if at all.

nozzferrahhtoo

Charles Ingles wrote: »

You are mixing up the old testament and the new testament.

They quoted claims from both of them. How is that mixing them up?

Charles Ingles wrote: »

And Our lady did give birth to out saviour Jesus Christ.

Evidence please. That is quite a specific claim and by the lights of this forum you are expected to substantiate your claims on request.

Charles Ingles wrote: »

You may not believe but have a bit of respect for people of faith

We should respect people, not ideas. Do not pretend that our lack of respect for your absolutely unsubstantiated and nonsense claims... is the same as a lack of respect for the people who believe those claims. They are two different things.

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Can I ask you a question if you don't mind, do you believe in an after life or when you die is that it?

I have seen ZERO evidence that human consciousness, sentience, or subjective experience survives the death of the brain in any way at all.

Charles Ingles wrote: »

That's why I'm so passionate about abortion I believe we all have a soul even the tiniest of babies in a mother's womb.

Then by all means YOU should never avail of abortion services for yourself or vicariously through anyone else.

But until you can substantiate your claims about souls, perhaps you should be voting for legislation to allow OTHERS to do what they want in that scenario. YOUR fantasy about an after life should be yours alone and not curtail the rights, freedoms, and choices of people who are not you.

Charles Ingles wrote: »

And just dismissing a baby as a fetus is something I don't understand. It's a baby once a woman is pregnant it's a baby

That you do not understand it is confusing given how often, and how well, it has been explained to you and others over 1000s of posts on this multi-thread so far.

However I am perfectly willing and able and open to explaining it to you again. Have you any questions? Where would you like me to start?

nozzferrahhtoo

splinter65 wrote: »

Shouting in capitals doesn’t make you right Susie. It’s just your opinion that’s all. Any comment to make on this latest debacle?

What comment is required? ALL medical intervention, if you trawl the literature, will turn up isolated cases of error and misdiagnosis. It happens all the time. Abortion is nothing new here.

It does not mean it is not unfortunate, but it is not relevant. There WILL be people who opt for abortion on information that later turns out to be false or in error. Medical Science is not perfect.

So this "case" is only a case of something we all knew was going to happen. It has happened before. It WILL happen again.

What we can do is attempt to learn from each case such as this to improve procedures, tests, evaluations and decision making in the future. And if malpractice is involved the staff in question should be retrained or removed.

We must LEARN from it. Nothing more. We certainly should not chop off an entire limb to create an infection in a toe like a "the 8th would save babies like this" response from you.

What relevance do YOU think it has and what form of comment do you require?

Deleted User wrote: »

What compensation could the state ever give them to make up for this?

Many times in the past I have heard people on TV and Radio shows who have had the medical system fail them in some way. Quite often they start a campaign in response to raise awareness in society and the government about what happened. It can be very moving, especially when the loss.... or perceived loss.... of a child is involved.

So to answer your question I do not know how you could ever fully "Compensate" parents in such a scenario. But a damn good place to start is to take notice, open communication, and show that your awareness as a government has been raised by the case in question. And you intend to use the experience and knowledge to improve things in Legislation, society, and for other people in similar situations.

Damn good place to start, wouldn't you agree? Showing such people that their turmoil is ultimately going to effect change and COUNT for something.

amcalester

Deleted User wrote: »

Very sad doesn't begin to cover the loss they have suffered.

I don't think anyone has said it did, I know I didn't.

splinter65

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

How is it a debacle? The couple in question sought an abortion based on the information available at the time. The abortion was a success, hindsight of course is always 20/20

A perfectly healthy baby is dead and parents are grieving.
Because the 8th amendment was removed.
If a dead baby as a result of a change in legislation isn’t a debacle then what is?

Charles Ingles

smacl wrote: »

That's your opinion, repeating it twice doesn't make it any more true. Personally I also find the opportunistic exploitation of this couple's loss by those with a pro-life agenda repugnant.

Would that apply to pro-abortion advocates who use cases in the other extreme as an excuse to repeal the eighth amendment?

splinter65

Cabaal wrote: »

And what if it was the other way round?
what if the fetus had edwords but could not have an abortion. Who's head gets put on a spike then?

Then a baby would have been born sooner or later like all babies and possibly been born already dead or died soon after birth. What’s your point?

Charles Ingles

splinter65 wrote: »

A perfectly healthy baby is dead and parents are grieving.
Because the 8th amendment was removed.
If a dead baby as a result of a change in legislation isn’t a debacle then what is?

We need to suspend the repealing of the eight amendment until we find out what happened to ensure this can't happen again

splinter65

smacl wrote: »

That's your opinion, repeating it twice doesn't make it any more true. Personally I also find the opportunistic exploitation of this couple's loss by those with a pro-life agenda repugnant.

But not the same as hauling Savita Halapanaveer out at every opportunity at all......

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What comment is required? ALL medical intervention, if you trawl the literature, will turn up isolated cases of error and misdiagnosis. It happens all the time. Abortion is nothing new here.

It does not mean it is not unfortunate, but it is not relevant. There WILL be people who opt for abortion on information that later turns out to be false or in error. Medical Science is not perfect.

So this "case" is only a case of something we all knew was going to happen. It has happened before. It WILL happen again.

What we can do is attempt to learn from each case such as this to improve procedures, tests, evaluations and decision making in the future. And if malpractice is involved the staff in question should be retrained or removed.

Agreed, and for those who aren't already aware of, our national maternity hospital is an extremely pressured environment doing the very best they can under exceptionally difficult circumstances. There are tragic outcomes on a regular basis that could in many cases be avoided if we as a society provided our midwives and doctors with proper working conditions, a decent salary, and the full respect they are due for the incredible work they put in. While this case is tragic, it is only in the limelight as it involves the emotive topic of abortion. For anyone who genuinely considers themselves 'pro-life', as opposed to simply 'anti-abortion', you might ask yourselves how many more lives could be saved here?

drunkmonkey

smacl wrote: »

A healthy child is not dead. A 15 week old fetus is not a healthy child. An unnecessary termination took place due to a misdiagnosis of FFA. Those are the facts.

It's up to 28 weeks. Fetus is cold those parents had made a child. There doesn't seem to have been a misdiagnosis, the diagnosis was incomplete. Somebody has committed a serious offence. Let's hope they are prosecuted for ending a life. The bar needs to be set high in this case.