Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

Anteayer

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Eh, no. Did you notice that it was a question? As in, do you realise that you don't have to read this thread?

Questions can be rhetorical and it looks rather pointed.

Sonny noggs

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The inhumanity of the State forcing birth on any woman. That's something you'd instinctively associate with some mediaeval, savage society, not a modern democracy.

Was it Gloria Steinem who once said "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament"?

Did the state force her to get pregnant?

Wow, a feminist said something once. Who cares?

dartboardio

Ridiculous for them to be suing the hospital.

Termination took place because it was HIGHLY likely it would have fatal abnormalities. Thats worth the risk.

They were happy to go ahead with the termination and now want to sue because it ended up being the very less likely outcome?

Basxxards.

Nobelium

judeboy101 wrote: »

Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

https://www.thejournal.ie/holles-st-review-termination-of-pregnancy-4639179-May2019/

interesting one. Docs obviously fecked up test but mother didn't want a dodgy baby

Interesting is right. Apparently it's grand to abort a healthy child on purpose, but tragic when you do it to them by accident . . .

Muzzymor

It's a sad story. That said I can't quite wrap my head arround the hypocritical pseudo-morality that treats the killing of an unborn child as one of either a)a tragic ending of an irreplaceable human life or b) a routine procedure that is every woman's right and simply gets rid of a "parasite/foetus/bunch of cells" or whatever the pro-abortion lingo of the day is because it's part of "her body" , with the only distinction between the two being whether the mother wanted the child or not.

If you value unborn life and think killing an unborn child is wrong, you value it enough to feel that abortion is wrong. If you think abortion isn't wrong or immoral then surely a case like this while a shame is just sad because the mother lost a foetus and it can be easily rectified by the lady in question getting pregnant again so she can grow a new "foetus" or clump or cells inside her.

Amirani

political analyst wrote: »

What mother wouldn't hold on to the slightest chance that her unborn child would survive?

Em, lots of them. For various reasons. Stupid question really.

Igotadose

political analyst wrote: »

Abortion means that an unborn child conceived by rape is killed - even though capital punishment was abolished long ago and rape was never a capital offence in this jurisdiction - do you not see the contradiction there?

Agreed that rape, in some cases, should've been a capital offence.

nozzferrahhtoo

stefanovich wrote: »

I used the word "it" because I did not know the gender of the child not to dehumanise like yourself.

Which is still not what I said in the post you replied to. You edited out what I was talking about, and then substituted your own "it" instead.

AGAIN what I wrote was this: "What makes it different is that many of us retain our moral and ethical concerns for ACTUAL sentient agents. Not potential ones that never happened like you do."

There was a potential sentient human here. It however was terminated. It never came to be. My moral concern is for ACTUAL sentient entities.... the couple in this case..... not potential ones that never came to be, like you are concerned with.

See the difference now?

stefanovich wrote: »

A pregnant woman having an abortion is an abomination.

To you. But I am yet to see you make a single moral or ethical argument supporting such a position. Is it.... forthcoming perhaps?

stefanovich wrote: »

Well, it is surely a violation of nature.

By what standards? What standard of "nature" are you using here? After all are anti biotics not a violation of nature by the same token? Glasses? Heart by pass?

We over ride the purview and dictates of nature all the time. There is no argument on offer here, least of all from you, as to why we should not be.

So why is abortion suddenly magically different from everything else we do with our medical science?

stefanovich wrote: »

Killing children is killing children.

And aborting a fetus is aborting a fetus.

It is not us that is missing the distinction here.

suicide_circus

Nobelium wrote: »

Interesting is right. Apparently it's grand to abort a healthy child on purpose, but tragic when you do it to them by accident . . .

i dont think anyone ever claimed that the pro choice position was one devoid of hypocrisy. We indulge in hypocrisy in just about every facet of life.

Igotadose

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You imagine wrong.


Not really

Depends on the legal system. Hence my original question - it would seem fraught with potential legal peril to 'recommend' a termination. Lawsuits could show up based on presumption of 'coercion.'

So, what was the circumstance where you believe you (or someone you know) were recommended a termination? I don't know what the practice is in Ireland, hence my original question. Just thinking lawerly, it seems unlikely a termination would ever be recommended. Offered as an option is very different. Even if the patient said, "Dr. what would you recommend," the doctor can choose not to make a recommendation but just offer the options couched in "It's your decision"

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

stefanovich wrote: »

What kind of question is that?

A hard life, or death. What would you choose? Most would choose the first because our most basic and primal instinct is to stay alive. An unwanted child with a tough life can grow up to be an amazing person.

A pregnant woman having an abortion is an abomination.

Then you’ve likely met a lot of abominations in your life. It’s highly unlikely that you don’t know or have never have known women who have had an abortion. If you found out that a close female friend of yours had an abortion, would the friendship be over?

nozzferrahhtoo

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

It's kinda weird that a living person who is dying and in agony has no right to die, but a perfectly healthy baby who has no say in the matter can legally be killed.

That is the kind of nonsense that alas comes from a misguided but well meant focus on "life at all costs". People see "life" and they think that is more than enough to rush to protect. And it results in the kind of nonsense dissonance you identify here.

A better approach to my mind is to work out what we are actually trying to do with our morality and ethics. Such as to increase the well being, freedoms, and choices of actual sentient agents that can suffer.

When you take THAT approach you do indeed find it weird why we would not let someone suffering die at their own behest.... or why we would be concerned about the rights and well being of a fetal blob even in and of itself.... let alone at the expense of the rights, well being, and freedoms of the actual sentient agent it inhabits.

Sonny noggs

Sonny noggs wrote: »

Wow, a feminist said something once. Who cares?

My comment was directed at the grimly mocking yet provocative observation that Steinem made. The fact that Steinem is a feminist is as irrelevant as the fact (I'm sure of it) that you are a man.

stefanovich

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Then you’ve likely met a lot of abominations in your life. It’s highly unlikely that you don’t know or have never have known women who have had an abortion. If you found out that a close female friend of yours had an abortion, would the friendship be over?

I am not calling the woman an abomination. It's the act of abortion I am referring to.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

stefanovich wrote: »

I am not calling the woman an abomination. It's the act of abortion I am referring to.

Lucky, lucky ladies who you thankfully don’t consider abominations. Just one of the decisions they made. That’s all. Phew!

stefanovich

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Lucky, lucky ladies who you thankfully don’t consider abominations. Just one of the decisions they made. That’s all. Phew!

Exactly. And I think the push to normalise this is only going to make this worse.

Muzzymor

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Which is still not what I said in the post you replied to. You edited out what I was talking about, and then substituted your own "it" instead.

AGAIN what I wrote was this: "What makes it different is that many of us retain our moral and ethical concerns for ACTUAL sentient agents. Not potential ones that never happened like you do."

There was a potential sentient human here. It however was terminated. It never came to be. My moral concern is for ACTUAL sentient entities.... the couple in this case..... not potential ones that never came to be, like you are concerned with.

See the difference now?



To you. But I am yet to see you make a single moral or ethical argument supporting such a position. Is it.... forthcoming perhaps?



By what standards? What standard of "nature" are you using here? After all are anti biotics not a violation of nature by the same token? Glasses? Heart by pass?

We over ride the purview and dictates of nature all the time. There is no argument on offer here, least of all from you, as to why we should not be.

So why is abortion suddenly magically different from everything else we do with our medical science?



And aborting a fetus is aborting a fetus.

It is not us that is missing the distinction here.

Inventing new dehumanising terms is often successful at making certain people feel ok about the ending of human life (I know, I know, what relevance does that comment have here, in this dicussion about the "termination" of a "foetus".

We have regular cases in this country where courts award millions/tens of millions of euros to artificially extend the life of people with severe brain damage. The mainstream media/political organisations are strongly against the death penalty for even the most hideous crimes, all because of the supposed value of all human life, something that for some reason doesn't apply in the case of a healthy "foetus", not because it isn't human life, but because of a handful of hypocritical convenient justifications and some calculatied replacement of terms like "killing" and "human" with "foetus" and "termination".

SuperRabbit

elusiveoctopus wrote: »

"It was thought the baby had Trisomy18, also known as Edwards Syndrome, but a series of genetic tests later found that was not the case."

Maybe they should confirm the child had the disease before acting on it.

" The rapid test can give a false positive. “That’s why it is necessary to look at the total picture. If there is no ultrasound abnormality most laboratories recommend to wait for the full two weeks,” he explained.
“But some patients are not prepared to wait the two weeks and want to continue to termination. Generally we recommend that they get the total picture,” he added."

It sounds like something that was/is completely avoidable, it's not clear if the parents didn't listen to advice or if they weren't given the advice they should have been given according to this.

You guys are all debating abortion now instead of talking about this tragedy, which happened because someone along the way didn't do what they were supposed to do. Lots of people die when doctors make mistakes, it doesn't mean medicine should be banned.

mvl

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Like i said, I don;t know much about the case. But the hospital has no right to block a termination until tests come back. The first test came back and the couple opted for termination. That's all the hospital needs to know. The hospital should advise the couple that the other tests could reveal new information but that doesn't mean the hospital should refuse the termination.

Actually I thought the hospital accepts terminations after 12 weeks when certain conditions are met - is this not correct ?
But assuming this was a wanted pregnancy, I am trying to find out what actor with medical background could have guided them for a different outcome, or could have been involved in the sign off of this termination. The process could seek improvements from failures like this.

And another thing I would hope someone who has medical background or has been through this recently can enlighten me: why/when is CVS used instead of amniocentesis here ?
- as it sounds to me (but I'm not medical nor I looked into this for more than 10 years) CVS has more risks of miscarriage than amniocentesis, and possibly is less accurate (being done too early).

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

stefanovich wrote: »

Exactly. And I think the push to normalise this is only going to make this worse.

Seriously, you know women who have had an abortion. You just don’t know it. It’s already normalised and has been for years. But now women can get proper aftercare afterwards near their homes. Yay! The argument over whether an abortion is a medical procedure or not is valid. However, complications and aftercare are most definitely medical in nature.

Nobelium

suicide_circus wrote: »

i dont think anyone ever claimed that the pro choice position was one devoid of hypocrisy. We indulge in hypocrisy in just about every facet of life.

Good honest observation . . being hypocritical about abortion doesn't make hypocrisy and abortion ok though. Two wrongs don't make a right.

stefanovich

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Seriously, you know women who have had an abortion. You just don’t know it. It’s already normalised and has been for years. But now women can get proper aftercare afterwards near their homes. Yay!

I do know women who have had abortions. Some quite closely. Guilt is the main aftereffect.

Muzzymor

SuperRabbit wrote: »

You guys are all debating abortion now instead of talking about this tragedy, which happened because someone along the way didn't do what they were supposed to do. Lots of people die when doctors make mistakes, it doesn't mean medicine should be banned.

This is only a "tragedy" if you believe abortion is the killing of a human.

On the other hand, if we're discussing the termination of a non-setient foetus/clump of cells, it's considerably less tragic, wouldn't you agree.

How about a bit of moral consistency, something is either tragic or it isn't. It doesn't become either tragic or completely non-tragic and fine simply based on whether or not the mother in question wanted the child.

Faugheen

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Not really

Yes they are.

Recommendation - a proposal as to the best course of action.

Suggestion - an idea or plan put forward for consideration.

stefanovich

Muzzymor wrote: »

This is only a "tragedy" if you believe abortion is the killing of a human.

On the other hand, if we're discussing the termination of a non-setient foetus/clump of cells, it's considerably less tragic, wouldn't you agree.

How about a bit of moral consistency, something is either tragic or it isn't. It doesn't become either tragic or completely non-tragic and fine simply based on whether or not the mother in question wanted the child.

Is a 6 month old foetus who is moving and burping and sleeping and dreaming sentient?

nozzferrahhtoo

stefanovich wrote: »

I do know women who have had abortions. Some quite closely. Guilt is the main aftereffect.

That is the great thing about anecdote, mine is as good as yours. And I know several people who accessed abortion too. Guilt is entirely absent in all of them.

Go figure huh.

Muzzymor wrote: »

Inventing new dehumanising terms is often successful at making certain people feel ok about the ending of human life

Who is inventing new ones? I propose we stick to the old ones, but work harder at ensuring people use them CORRECTLY.

I can not "dehumanise" that which people have utterly failed to warrant the "Humanisation" of in the first place.

See the problem is, and it is inconvenient to the average anti choice campaigner.... I know all the different meanings the word "Human" has, and in what contexts. So I spot when people use one definition in the false context.

Muzzymor wrote: »

all because of the supposed value of all human life, something that for some reason doesn't apply in the case of a healthy "foetus"

The "for some reason" is feigning an ignorance I am not sure I believe you actually suffer from. There is a reason, and it is quite a clear one. I can explain it to you however, if you deign to ask. You will find it not at all complex to understand. But again you will find it comes down to a distinction between different meanings of the word "human". Some of which apply to a fetus, and some of which do not.

So shall we have at it, or would you prefer to continue to feign ignorance?

Nobelium

Muzzymor wrote: »

Inventing new dehumanising terms is often successful at making certain people feel ok about the ending of human life (I know, I know, what relevance does that comment have here, in this dicussion about the "termination" of a "foetus".

We have regular cases in this country where courts award millions/tens of millions of euros to artificially extend the life of people with severe brain damage. The mainstream media/political organisations are strongly against the death penalty for even the most hideous crimes, all because of the supposed value of all human life, something that for some reason doesn't apply in the case of a healthy "foetus", not because it isn't human life, but because of a handful of hypocritical convenient justifications and some calculatied replacement of terms like "killing" and "human" with "foetus" and "termination".

Ironically foetus is not some obscure medical term , but simply latin for offspring / little one.

ToBeFrank123

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

It's not, and yes most of your comments indicate you have no idea......

Was it signed off by 2 doctors as per the law?
If so then these doctors may have a case to answer.

joe40

I don't know all the details of this case and none of us do. But the misdiagnosis is not necessarily due to malpractice or a mistake it could be limitations in the test.
Even if a test competently carried out had 99.9% accuracy that is still 1 in a thousand getting the wrong result.
From basic reading of this case it seems the first test was positive but not conclusive and the parents acted on this.
So long as they were fully informed that was their choice.
Imagine if you were told there was a 99% chance of a FFA that might be enough to seek a termination for many people.
It is tragic but too early to be pointing blame at either medics or parents.
For staunch pro life people abortion in the case of ffa is still wrong so they will use this to justify their stance. But there is always the chance of misdiagnosis, whether due to human error or limitations in the test. No one claimed otherwise.

Muzzymor

stefanovich wrote: »

Is a 6 month old foetus who is moving and burping and sleeping and dreaming sentient?

I don't buy into the "sentience" argument as a justification
for abortion in the first place.
There are people who are so massively brain damaged that they will never be "sentient" again but we keep them alive in hospitals at great cost or at home with 5 full time carers and all the rest. There are "foetus's" who will soon be healthy fully sentient humans on the condition that someone doesn't kill them, but people value this life far less than the former case/not at all. We don't pull the plug on people who are in temporary coma's etc, but the fact that feotus won't be sentient for another few weeks etc seems to make killing it ok for most Irish people.

kaymin

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is the great thing about anecdote, mine is as good as yours. And I know several people who accessed abortion too. Guilt is entirely absent in all of them.

Go figure huh.



Who is inventing new ones? I propose we stick to the old ones, but work harder at ensuring people use them CORRECTLY.

I can not "dehumanise" that which people have utterly failed to warrant the "Humanisation" of in the first place.

See the problem is, and it is inconvenient to the average anti choice campaigner.... I know all the different meanings the word "Human" has, and in what contexts. So I spot when people use one definition in the false context.



The "for some reason" is feigning an ignorance I am not sure I believe you actually suffer from. There is a reason, and it is quite a clear one. I can explain it to you however, if you deign to ask. You will find it not at all complex to understand. But again you will find it comes down to a distinction between different meanings of the word "human". Some of which apply to a fetus, and some of which do not.

So shall we have at it, or would you prefer to continue to feign ignorance?

Having seen the ultrasound image and videos of my baby boy at 1 month, 2 months, 3 months etc I don't need someone else to tell me when there is or is not another human life growing.

People choose to believe what they want despite what is in front of them because it is convenient to their lifestyle choices.

ToBeFrank123

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Was it signed off by 2 doctors as per the law?
If so then these doctors may have a case to answer.

Doesn't seem like they have a case to answer.

Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018
S.11: Condition likely to lead to death of foetus

(1) A termination of pregnancy may be carried out in accordance with this section where 2 medical practitioners, having examined the pregnant woman, are of the reasonable opinion formed in good faith that there is present a condition affecting the foetus that is likely to lead to the death of the foetus either before, or within 28 days of, birth.

This section provides for reasonable error. I'd say a certainty of 99.9% or higher constitutes a reasonable certainty, so there's almost no prospect of the doctors involved being prosecuted.

Nevertheless, the test for civil liability is completely different.

uptherebels

Muzzymor wrote: »

I don't buy into the "sentience" argument as a justification
for abortion in the first place.
There are people who are so massively brain damaged that they will never be "sentient" again but we keep them alive in hospitals at great cost or at home with 5 full time carers and all the rest. There are "foetus's" who will soon be healthy fully sentient humans on the condition that someone doesn't kill them, but people value this life far less than the former case/not at all. We don't pull the plug on people who are in temporary coma's etc, but the fact that feotus won't be sentient for another few weeks etc seems to make killing it ok for most Irish people.

Your equating foetus who will be sentient to somebody who was sentient but has suffered a brain injury. Society views these differently because they are different.

stefanovich

uptherebels wrote: »

Your equating foetus who will be sentient to somebody who was sentient but has suffered a brain injury. Society views these differently because they are different.

At what age does the foetus become sentient? After it is born? After it's heart starts beating?

Nobelium

uptherebels wrote: »

Your equating foetus who will be sentient to somebody who was sentient but has suffered a brain injury. Society views these differently because they are different.

what society are you claiming to represent ?

amcalester

kaymin wrote: »

Having seen the ultrasound image and videos of my baby boy at 1 month, 2 months, 3 months etc I don't need someone else to tell me when there is or is not another human life growing.

People choose to believe what they want despite what is in front of them because it is convenient to their lifestyle choices.

What did the ultrasound show at 4 weeks?

joe40

stefanovich wrote: »

I am not calling the woman an abomination. It's the act of abortion I am referring to.

If an act is an abomination, then quite clearly the person carrying out the act is an abomination.
If you think an abortion is murder then anyone having an abortion or any doctor performing one should be in jail.
At least have consistency in your opinions.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

stefanovich wrote: »

I do know women who have had abortions. Some quite closely. Guilt is the main aftereffect.

Yes, some will feel guilt. But they knew that could happen when they made the decision. Many of us carry around guilt all our lives for things we have done. I feel guilty for not get a second opinion when a nearing-retirement doctor hand-waved away 28 year old me when I turned up with a symptom that I later discovered should have earned me an urgent referral to the breast clinic at the nearest hospital. I’m now paying for that with a death sentence. Don’t talk to me about guilt. Guilt is likely only one of many emotions they feel about their decision, same as me.

Muzzymor

uptherebels wrote: »

Your equating foetus who will be sentient to somebody who was sentient but has suffered a brain injury. Society views these differently because they are different.

Yes they are extremely different, the harsh truth is that one of them (the foetus) has all the potential in the world as long as we don't kill it and the other has zero potential for sentience or "a life" regardless of however many millions of euros are spent on keeping them alive.

Personally I don't think killing either is ok.

Nobelium

stefanovich wrote: »

At what age does the foetus become sentient? After it is born? After it's heart starts beating?

whenever they or they relatives can start sueing you apparently . . .

ToBeFrank123

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Doesn't seem like it

Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018
S.11: Condition likely to lead to death of foetus


This section provides for reasonable error. I'd say a certainty of 99.9% or higher constitutes a reasonable certainty, so there's almost no prospect of the doctors involved being prosecuted.

Nevertheless, the test for civil liability is completely different.

This to me is key. If 2 doctors signed off they have a case to answer as they are potentially a danger to others and probably shouldn't be practising. If 2 doctors didn't sign off then whoever carried out the abortion broke the law if the abortion happened in Ireland.

And running a single test no matter how allegedly accurate always carries risks. At minimum 2 tests should be required.

kaymin

amcalester wrote: »

What did the ultrasound show at 4 weeks?

Gestational sac, heartbeat at ~ 1 month.

Infini

Anteayer wrote: »

We've had this debate and had it in incredible depth for over 30 years.

Do we really need to rehash the abortion referendum in perpetuity? I don't honestly think there's any public appetite for a return to the 1980s or to Alabama for that matter either.

We have pretty conservative abortion laws that are very much in line with our relatively conservative continental peers.

It's like we always seem to have these debates about an idealised view of the world where everything is either right or wrong and there are absolutely no grey areas or pragmatism.

Biology and humanity exists entirely in the hard to define grey areas.

By all means look at it and see what can be improved but we can't step back into the dark ages of absolutism.

The simple truth is there's those on the "pro-life/pro-birth" side whatever you want to call it who simply refuse to accept the decision of the majority on this and will go pushing the same tired argument over and over endlessly because they simply refuse to stop meddling in other people's lives on this issue. It's like whats happening in Alabama this is purely down to one thing: Control of other people's live and nothing else. It's the choice of the mother and father involved and noone else's and everyone else needs to butt out as they're not helping only interfering where they have no business doing so.

Abortion is a medical issue it's up to the parent's to make these decisions and the parents alone without interference or coercion from any other group. Noone looks for this lightly and even in this case it was a mistake only happening because initial test's showed the potential life was to be crippled with a fatal development.

nozzferrahhtoo

kaymin wrote: »

Having seen the ultrasound image and videos of my baby boy at 1 month, 2 months, 3 months etc I don't need someone else to tell me when there is or is not another human life growing.

Ermmmmm ok. What has this to do with me given I never told anyone "when there is or is not another human life growing."?????

kaymin wrote: »

People choose to believe what they want despite what is in front of them because it is convenient to their lifestyle choices.

You will have to take it up with "people" then as you are not describing me here. I do not choose what I believe. The evidence, argument, data and reasoning offered for a position dictates to me what I believe, and why.

amcalester

kaymin wrote: »

Gestational sac, heartbeat at ~ 1 month.

There’s no heartbeat at 4 weeks.

Why lie?

ToBeFrank123

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

This to me is key. If 2 doctors signed off they have a case to answer as they are potentially a danger to others

There is absolutely no reason to believe that, and it's unfair on the doctors involved to imply such a thing. The rapid test has an accuracy rate in the order of 99.9%

And running a single test no matter how allegedly accurate always carries risks. At minimum 2 tests should be required.

2 tests did produce a positive result for Edwards' Syndrome. It was the third test, after the termination occurred, which was negative.

nozzferrahhtoo

stefanovich wrote: »

At what age does the foetus become sentient? After it is born? After it's heart starts beating?

A good question and we have no 100% clear answer to it. Thankfully we do not need one. Our best knowledge as far as I know is that we can begin to SUSPECT it might be sentient somewhere after week 26.

What we do know however is there is ZERO reason to suspect a fetus sentient from 0 weeks to periods into the 20 weeks.

What we also know is that CHOICE based abortion almost always happen (over 96%) by weeks 16. In fact over 92% by week 12. Regardless of whether abortion in the jurisdiction is illegal, legal with cut offs, or legal with no cut offs.

So if you hear of someone opting out of choice for an abortion, there is pretty much NO reason to think they are killing a remotely sentient agent. Something you and I can not say about the last steak we ate in fact.

nozzferrahhtoo

Muzzymor wrote: »

I don't buy into the "sentience" argument as a justification for abortion in the first place.

Then you demonstrate that you do not understand it because it is not a "justification" for abortion at all. It is an argument that shows that there is nothing that requires "justification" in the first place.

Muzzymor wrote: »

There are people who are so massively brain damaged that they will never be "sentient" again but we keep them alive in hospitals at great cost or at home with 5 full time carers and all the rest.

Citations please. Not of anyone brain damaged, but specifically of the scenarios you describe where we know they will "never be sentient again".

Muzzymor wrote: »

There are "foetus's" who will soon be healthy fully sentient humans

The fact you say they will SOON BE means you also acknowledge and happily admit they are not one NOW. Which is..... my point. So thanks for making it for me.

Muzzymor wrote: »

We don't pull the plug on people who are in temporary coma's etc, but the fact that feotus won't be sentient for another few weeks etc seems to make killing it ok for most Irish people.

And as I said the explanation for that is clear, even if you wish to feign ignorance about it.

Muzzymor

Infini wrote: »

The simple truth is there's those on the "pro-life/pro-birth" side whatever you want to call it who simply refuse to accept the decision of the majority on this and will go pushing the same tired argument over and over endlessly because they simply refuse to stop meddling in other people's lives on this issue. It's like whats happening in Alabama this is purely down to one thing: Control of other people's live and nothing else. It's the choice of the mother and father involved and noone else's and everyone else needs to butt out as they're not helping only interfering where they have no business doing so.

Abortion is a medical issue it's up to the parent's to make these decisions and the parents alone without interference or coercion from any other group. Noone looks for this lightly and even in this case it was a mistake only happening because initial test's showed the potential life was to be crippled with a fatal development.

Not really. I'd say the people who want to make ending a life ok are the ones who are meddling with the lives of other humans

If the parents wanted to have themselves aborted I'd be libertarian enough to say that's their choice/right to choose what to do with their own existence, but they don't want to end their own life, they want to end someone else's, someone who didn't decide they wanted their life to be snuffed out before they were born.

nozzferrahhtoo

Muzzymor wrote: »

Not really. I'd say the people who want to make ending a life ok are the ones who are meddling with the lives of other humans

To be fair WHATEVER decision we make in our democracies about our position on abortion in any given jurisdiction is going to be "meddling in the lives of other humans". So there is no justifiable pissing contest to be had there.

The real question is that while meddling, is there any moral or ethical argument for curtailing the choices, freedoms and well being of actual human sentient PEOPLE, in deference to something that is not, and has not, ever been sentient?

Muzzymor wrote: »

but they don't want to end their own life, they want to end someone else's, someone who didn't decide they wanted their life to be snuffed out before they were born.

You are projecting. They are killing a someTHING there not a someONE.

It is not that they did or did not "decide" they want their life ended. They do not even have the capacities or faculties relevant to the concept of "decision" in the first place.

You are projecting YOUR faculties of sentience and decision making onto a living biological form that lacks them entirely, and acting like this is then morally relevant. You could make the same error with a rock and it would be no less a nonsense.