Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

Faugheen

Mr.H wrote: »

Well that is completely false. There is a small but real chance that a baby born before 20 weeks can live. In fact the youngest born was only 13 weeks which is 2 weeks younger than the one here.

Have you any kids? You dont need to answer as it is a personal question. But one that you can think about yourself. Have you been for a 9 week scan, 12 week scan, 15 week scan, 20 week scan and so on. If you have then you do see when they start to form. I have a scan from 15 weeks and while it us blurry you can actually see some detail of my son in it. Its crazy how he was defined so early on and looks the exact same. The reason i ask is because quiet often people talk about stuff they know absolutely nothing about and purely because its popular opinion.

Yes forced. The couple. Not just the woman, were told that their child would likely die very early on if it were born. The option was to go through with pregnancy and leave their child suffer for what little life they had, or have an abortion. Yes that is forcing someones decision. They were given the wrong information and if the laws didnt change they would have not been given the option. A healthy baby would have lived.

I do have kids, not that it's any of your business.

Have you ever been pregnant? The reason I ask is because quite often men talk about stuff they have absolutely no clue about what it's like to experience purely because they think they can control what women do.

It's not forcing anyone's decision. They could have kept going with the pregnancy but they CHOSE not to, which is the right that we, the people, gave them.

Plumbthedepths

cournioni wrote:

A baby shouldn’t be denied their life and it shouldn’t be met with a cruel death because circumstances aren’t ideal.

I'll ask you again, should a woman be forced to remain pregnant against her regardless if her situation? If you can't/won't answer that's fine. Another poster suggested they should be incarcerated into a mental health facility and forced to carry to term. Would you agree?

Timberrrrrrrr

Mr.H wrote: »

What are you blubbering about?

Where did i say we should ban anything?

I am merely saying that this is a horrible story and yes it wouldnt have happened if the vote went the other way. I am not saying we should reverse that decision. We need to improve procedure and not let things like this happen again.

You must know nothing about babies. Let me give you an example. Children are born without neck control. For the most part. Some kids get control when they are 3/4 months old. My son had full neck control by week 1. He was also born at 36 weeks as oppose to 40. He was also 10ibs when he was born at 36 weeks. Most babies are around half that when they go full term (38-40 weeks). At 21 weeks the baby you found on wiki was a pound. At 20 weeks my little guy was almost 2 pounds. At 20 weeks!! You either get that because youve experienced all this or you dont and have no clue what i mean. All babies are different sizes. Some will be bigger than others. Some smaller. The size very much impacts their ability to survive a premature birth.

So you can deflect all the attention away from the story that you want. But the 8th would have saved this healthy baby.

No it wouldnt.

cournioni

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I'll ask you again, should a woman be forced to remain pregnant against her regardless if her situation?

I answered your question. If the alternative is killing a baby then yes she should remain pregnant. Why deny the baby their life because of an unfortunate situation that baby has no say in?

STB.

nullzero wrote: »

Could you answer the question I asked previously, if the vote last year had been no should the repeal movement have respected the vote and not raised the issue again?

You want me to answer a hypothetical question ?

The previous contentious amendment that previously stood between 1983 and 2018 ? Is that not respect ?

What I can answer is one posing the question - Did the No side respect the decision of the electorate. No they didn't. They immediately challenged it in the Courts in an attempt to frustrate the democratic process. We will always have people who refuse to accept the decisions, like this guy>

cournioni wrote: »

I answered your question. If the alternative is killing a baby then yes she should remain pregnant. Why deny the baby their life because of an unfortunate situation that baby has no say in?

The only thing unfortunate is your refusal to accept the democratic vote. You will have to get over that, especially in your black and white world.

Faugheen

cournioni wrote: »

I answered your question. If the alternative is killing a baby then yes she should remain pregnant. Why deny the baby their life because of an unfortunate situation that baby has no say in?

Nice to see you finally admit that you want to control women.

Plumbthedepths

cournioni wrote:

I answered your question. If the alternative is killing a baby then yes she should remain pregnant. Why deny the baby their life because of an unfortunate situation that baby has no say in?

You didn't you side stepped the question. So the woman's rights are secondary to the foetus, thanks for confirming. Thankfully your attitude exists in the minority and rightly so. Women are not brood mares.

nullzero

STB. wrote: »

You want me to answer a hypothetical question ?


The previous contentious ammendment that previously stood between 1983 and 2018 ? Is that not respect ?



What I can answer is did the No side respect the decision of the electorate. No they didn't. They immediately challenged in the Courts in an attempt to frustrate the democratic process.

The 1983 referendum passed with almost 70% of the vote. It wasn't contentious at the time, although I didn't agree with it.

You are saying that No campaigners shouldn't have a voice whilst making statements about how things should work in a democracy. This shows a level of cognitive dissonance that is frankly comical.

So yes I would like you to answer the simple question I asked you. And if you could answer without calling me a simpleton I'd be much obliged.

cournioni

cournioni wrote: »

I answered your question. If the alternative is killing a baby then yes she should remain pregnant. Why deny the baby their life because of an unfortunate situation that baby has no say in?

You are walking through a deserted woodland. It is the middle of the night, and the area is very derelict. A cabin is on fire.

You run inside to see if there is anybody to save. There are two cots. To your left, one cot contains a petri dish with a label that says 'embryo'. To the right, in another cot, there is a totally unconscious newborn baby.

You only have time to save one, and presumably you choose the actual baby.

Why?

Mrsmum

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I'll ask you again, should a woman be forced to remain pregnant against her regardless if her situation? If you can't/won't answer that's fine. Another poster suggested they should be incarcerated into a mental health facility and forced to carry to term. Would you agree?

Except that we do already force a woman to remain pregnant after 12 weeks whether she likes it or now. I know you will probably say she has time to abort before the 12 weeks but after all her situation in life could utterly change at week 13 or after when according to you it is still not a baby. The vote probably wouldn't have carried if we didn't impose this force on women after 12 weeks because the general feeling was that the people would not stomach seeing a healthy baby aborted anything after 12 weeks regardless of the woman. So while you seem hell bent on getting someone to say forcing a woman to remain pregnant is terrible, we still do it even after the referendum all the same.

cournioni

Faugheen wrote: »

Nice to see you finally admit that you want to control women.

Only when it comes to women wanting to kill their unborn.

Faugheen

cournioni wrote: »

Only when it comes to women wanting to kill their unborn.

Nah, you don’t give a **** about the babies when they’re born, so don’t pretend to give a **** when they’re unborn.

This is all a control mechanism because you don’t agree with a woman making a choice for herself. Stupid wimmins.

Plumbthedepths

Mrsmum wrote:

Except that we do already force a woman to remain pregnant after 12 weeks whether she likes it or now. I know you will probably say she has time to abort before the 12 weeks but after all her situation in life could utterly change at week 13 or after when according to you it is still not a baby. The vote probably wouldn't have carried if we didn't impose this force on women after 12 weeks because the general feeling was that the people would not stomach seeing a healthy baby aborted anything after 12 weeks regardless of the woman. So while you seem hell bent on getting someone to say forcing a woman to remain pregnant is terrible, we still do it even after the referendum all the same.

We don't as the right to travel exists, most also know the majority of abortions take place in the first trimester.
I'm not hell bent on forcing anything on anyone, you seem to be confusing me with another poster.;-)

STB.

nullzero wrote: »

The 1983 referendum passed with almost 70% of the vote. It wasn't contentious at the time, although I didn't agree with it.

67% (Just like the 2018 vote was to overturn it)

It was contentious at the time as it did not recognise the rights of the mother.

nullzero wrote: »

You are saying that No campaigners shouldn't have a voice whilst making statements about how things should work in a democracy. This shows a level of cognitive dissonance that is frankly comical.

So yes I would like you to answer the simple question I asked you. And if you could answer without calling me a simpleton I'd be much obliged.

What I am saying is that the democratic electorate voted on it. That has changed the constitution on abortion. There is nothing left to negotiate, but you could have discerned that by reading my original posts.

Have a bit of respect. You're not in the amateur debating forum now.

SusieBlue

cournioni wrote: »

My no vote didn’t contribute to what we are discussing here. Killing a defenseless baby shouldn’t be on the cards, period.

That’s irrelevant. Your No vote perpetuated the pain and suffering of people having a crisis. You happily took the choice away from people whose circumstances you don’t know and don’t understand, just because it’s not something you personally disagree with.

You can’t proudly claim that your vote would have saved this baby when it would have added to the trauma of thousands of distressed women and couples.

SusieBlue

Mr.H wrote: »

Ill see if i can find the link later. It was a documentary i was watching. I think the couple where australian. The documentary was nothing to do with the baby. It was about frakking companies destroying small towns. They were saying the baby being born that premature was a reaction to the chemicals etc. Im out and about at the moment with the little one and ill have more time later if your genuinely interested.

But if not then dont get blinded by my obvious facetious point. The statement i replied to was "a woman can choose to do what she wants with her body". Its not as simple as that. That one line means a woman can have an abortion up to the second before birth. The sentence is too open ended. Therefore an invalid opinion. I agree with abortion. I voted for it ffs. But i also believe in science and my own experience of seeing how early my unborn son started to develope.

I’ve spent the last hour looking online and can find nothing of the sort.
Babies at that gestation don’t even have fully developed organs yet, let alone lungs, they cannot survive when born at 13 weeks.
Even when babies are born just 4 weeks early, they usually need steroids to help the lungs mature because they can’t breathe on their own.

I think they must have said 13 weeks premature which would be 27 weeks gestation. I don’t believe that a baby born at 13 weeks would be developed enough to survive.
Especially considering the earliest recorded birth is 21 weeks, held by a Canadian baby.

Mrsmum

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

We don't as the right to travel exists, most also know the majority of abortions take place in the first trimester.
I'm not hell bent on forcing anything on anyone, you seem to be confusing me with another poster.;-)

It doesn't matter that the majority of abortions take place in the first trimester. Circumstances can just as easily change thereafter and at the very least we still force her to travel for abortion. It seems to me we are quite comfortable with 'force' when it suits.

nullzero

STB. wrote: »

67% (Just like the 2018 vote was to overturn it)

It was contentious at the time as it did not recognise the rights of the mother.



What I am saying is that the democratic electorate voted on it. That has changed the constitution on abortion. There is nothing left to negotiate, but you could have discerned that by reading my original posts.

Have a bit of respect. You're not in the amateur debating forum now.

Are you seriously telling me to have a bit of respect? You who has referred to me as a simpleton three times already?

It's hilarious that you would even attempt to take the moral high ground here after your behaviour on this thread.

Yet again, cognitive dissonance and you still haven't addressed the question properly.

Timberrrrrrrr

Mrsmum wrote: »

It doesn't matter that the majority of abortions take place in the first trimester. Circumstances can just as easily change thereafter and at the very least we still force her to travel for abortion. It seems to me we are quite comfortable with 'force' when it suits.

I agree


Hopefully the 12 week limit is moved out soon.

STB.

nullzero wrote: »

Are you seriously telling me to have a bit of respect?

Yes.


For yourself and other poster please.

Bredabe

The fact that afaik, this info was leaked. Causing as planned a chilling effect and distrust about giving necessary information to a source that should be safe, reminiscent of the former soviet union from what I hear.

The subsequent lack of compassion/glee from the pro life sickens me about it all.

Even the staunch No voters around me, are saying these things are not right.

nullzero

STB. wrote: »

Yes.


For yourself and other poster please.

So you being openly abusive is acceptable and me asking you a simple question is a problem?

Plumbthedepths

Mrsmum wrote:

It doesn't matter that the majority of abortions take place in the first trimester. Circumstances can just as easily change thereafter and at the very least we still force her to travel for abortion. It seems to me we are quite comfortable with 'force' when it suits.

Of course it matters when they take place but the legislature also acted for extreme cases such as FFA which is what this case feel under.
You use of the word force is not the same as what one poster here would like to see. The incarceration of a pregnant female until she gives birth. That's actually a barbaric suggestion.

cournioni

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

You didn't you side stepped the question. So the woman's rights are secondary to the foetus, thanks for confirming. Thankfully your attitude exists in the minority and rightly so. Women are not brood mares.

The Cathy Newman school of putting words into others mouths being put into good use here I see.

Rights being used to kill defenseless unborn? I’d rather everyone be give the chance at having their voice heard, at least once.

volchitsa

cournioni wrote: »

Only when it comes to women wanting to kill their unborn.

That's the only form of coercion that's been legal for a long time now. But as we're seeing in several places, it really is just the start of what some men would like to be able to do - they're already trying to reduce access to contraception in some parts of the States, and Russia and Poland are removing laws against physical abuse of women by partners.

Timberrrrrrrr

cournioni wrote: »

The Cathy Newman school of putting words into others mouths being put into good use here I see.

Rights being used to kill defenseless unborn? I’d rather everyone be give the chance at having their voice heard, at least once.

Ok


In your world how would things happen?

Woman gets pregnant, thanks to yourself and your pro life friends there is no abortion in ireland. Woman decides she will travel to the UK for an abortion.

Do you let her go?

Lock her up until she gives birth?

Are there forced pregnancy tests at each port/airport?

cournioni

cournioni wrote: »

The Cathy Newman school of putting words into others mouths being put into good use here I see.

Rights being used to kill defenseless unborn? I’d rather everyone be give the chance at having their voice heard, at least once.

ye had your once.

cournioni

Faugheen wrote: »

Nah, you don’t give a **** about the babies when they’re born, so don’t pretend to give a **** when they’re unborn.

This is all a control mechanism because you don’t agree with a woman making a choice for herself. Stupid wimmins.

Another Cathy Newman...

I might not give too much of a **** about people when they’re born, but I do give a **** about people being given the opportunity.

Plumbthedepths

cournioni wrote:

The Cathy Newman school of putting words into others mouths being put into good use here I see.

Didn't put words in your mouth, you said you would to see the birth happen, so it is fair to assume that the women's wishes are secondary in your opinion.
The rest of your comment is emotive nonsense.

Plumbthedepths

Timberrrrrrrr wrote:

Lock her up until she gives birth?

I believe locking her up in a mental health facility until the birth was suggested along with making it illegal for an Irish woman to have an abortion anywhere. The poster you are replying to seems to agree with at least one of the suggestions I mentioned.

cournioni

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ok


In your world how would things happen?

Woman gets pregnant, thanks to yourself and your pro life friends there is no abortion in ireland. Woman decides she will travel to the UK for an abortion.

Do you let her go?

Lock her up until she gives birth?

Are there forced pregnancy tests at each port/airport?

Same laws should apply to the killing of unborn as born.

cournioni

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Didn't put words in your mouth, you said you would to see the birth happen, so it is fair to assume that the women's wishes are secondary in your opinion.
The rest of your comment is emotive nonsense.

Yes you did, it’s there in writing, and you’ve done it again with “so it’s fair to assume”.

A woman or a mans wishes are always secondary when it comes to killing an unborn, can it be any more black and white than that? I’ve been consistently saying that since I’ve started posting in this thread.

Mrsmum

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Of course it matters when they take place but the legislature also acted for extreme cases such as FFA which is what this case feel under.
You use of the word force is not the same as what one poster here would like to see. The incarceration of a pregnant female until she gives birth. That's actually a barbaric suggestion.

Not going to debate this back and forth all day as I think I've make my point now that pregnant women are still 'controlled' and restricted in certain ways even after the vote and there are valid reasons for that but absolutely to lock pregnant women up would be so barbaric that I doubt anyone seriously would want that.

Plumbthedepths

cournioni wrote:

Yes you did, it’s there in writing, and you’ve done it again with “so it’s fair to assumeâ€.

You comprehension needs work

Outlaw Pete

STB. wrote: »

People die in hospitals every day in every country because of wrong decisions/wrong scan results/wrong diagnosis.

Absolutely, Savita Halappanavar was one such person of coarse, but I bet the farm you weren't as philosophical about her death at the hands of medical error as you are about this baby's.

It wasn't a surprise that the pro-life lunatics jumped on this.

Pro-lifers are lunatics? You seriously believe that?

I mean, I think that argument could be made about anybody that thinks abortion shouldn't be available when a woman's life is in jeopardy or when a baby has zero chance of having any kind of quality of life as a result of a ffa, but such people are few and far between and so I think you're about as wrong as a person can be when you make such a disparaging remark.

Mrsmum

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I agree


Hopefully the 12 week limit is moved out soon.

While I don't agree with your wishes, I actually think your position is quite logical. It must have been a very easy vote for you if I'm right in thinking the life in the womb has no value in itself to you.

AulWan

Mr.H wrote: »

Yes forced. The couple. Not just the woman, were told that their child would likely die very early on if it were born. The option was to go through with pregnancy and leave their child suffer for what little life they had, or have an abortion. Yes that is forcing someones decision. They were given the wrong information and if the laws didnt change they would have not been given the option. A healthy baby would have lived.

You can't say with any degree of certainly that "a healthy baby would have lived" if the law hadn't changed.

This couple could have travelled to the UK and terminated anyway - you left that out the list of options they had, and its one which many took before repeal.

Thankfully, due to repeal no one is now forced to travel for an abortion.

Nobody was forced into having an abortion.

Plumbthedepths

Outlaw Pete wrote:

Pro-lifers are lunatics? You seriously believe that?

Its no different than one of those which thanked your post suggesting any sane person disagrees with abortion, it would seem according to them nearly 1.5 million of the population are insane. There are always extremes on both sides of an argument

Plumbthedepths

cournioni wrote:

A woman or a mans wishes are always secondary when it comes to killing an unborn, can it be any more black and white than that? I’ve been consistently saying that since I’ve started posting in this thread.

Unfortunately you your fellow citizens disagreed with your black and white position and now the woman is first and foremost as always should have been the case.
Still think 1.5 million are insane because they voted yes?

Timberrrrrrrr

cournioni wrote: »

Same laws should apply to the killing of unborn as born.

She is pregnant, nothing/no one has been killed.

To ensure this stays that way how do you go about it if you know a woman is actively seeking an abortion?

Timberrrrrrrr

Mrsmum wrote: »

While I don't agree with your wishes, I actually think your position is quite logical. It must have been a very easy vote for you if I'm right in thinking the life in the womb has no value in itself to you.

I have 5 children, 2 of thise are daughters in their 20's. I believe they should have a choice thats why i travelled back from the UK to vote yes.

B0jangles

cournioni wrote: »

The Cathy Newman school of putting words into others mouths being put into good use here I see.

Rights being used to kill defenseless unborn? I’d rather everyone be give the chance at having their voice heard, at least once.

You keep on refusing to answer the question, so people extrapolate from your evasive answers to get an actual solid reply and you accuse them of putting words in your mouth?

If you believe that a fetus' right to life is more important than the pregnant woman's right to decide whether or not to remain pregnant, and that your belief should be the law of the land, how can that law be implemented without forcing women to remain pregnant against their will?

In practical terms, how do you ensure unwillingly pregnant women stay pregnant?

stefanovich

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I have 5 children, 2 of thise are daughters in their 20's. I believe they should have a choice thats why i travelled back from the UK to vote yes.

So not legally resident? That would make you guilty of fraud.

Plumbthedepths

stefanovich wrote:

So not legally resident? That would make you guilty of fraud.

Not necessarily the poster could be working for the D of FA and based abroad .

Ken.

Mod- stefanovich and nullzero thread banned.

volchitsa

cournioni wrote: »

Another Cathy Newman...

I might not give too much of a **** about people when they’re born, but I do give a **** about people being given the opportunity.

Better get busy sticking pins in all those condoms then, considering all the millions and millions of people they've stopped from being born over decades, and still do...

cournioni

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Unfortunately you your fellow citizens disagreed with your black and white position and now the woman is first and foremost as always should have been the case.
Still think 1.5 million are insane because they voted yes?

Some insane and some misguided IMO.

The Germans voted Hitler into power once upon a time, were they right to do so?

volchitsa

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Absolutely, Savita Halappanavar was one such person of coarse, but I bet the farm you weren't as philosophical about her death at the hands of medical error as you are about this baby's.

No. All medical error should be taken seriously, but it's a fallacy to consider that we can ever reach zero mistakes. That won't happen, because we're human. Mistakes need to be taken seriously so as to learn from them, but we won't reach perfection.

However, and this is the point about Savita, that is exactly why anyone of sound mind must be allowed to have the final say about whether or not they are forced to put their health, never mind their life, at risk when another alternative is feasible.

Savita didn't choose to forego the usual medical procedure (usual in all other developed countries I mean) so she was not only not consenting, but also entirely dependent on GUH not to then mess up the treatment path that had been imposed on her against her wishes.

That's even worse than consenting to a treatment that is botched. Neither is acceptable, but forced treatment is itself an abuse of the patient's human rights.

Plumbthedepths

cournioni wrote:

The Germans voted Hitler into power once upon a time, were they right to do so?

Ah Godwin when you have nothing of value to add.

cournioni wrote:

Some insane and some misguided IMO.

What percentage and their insanity based on what qualifications ?

volchitsa

cournioni wrote: »

Some insane and some misguided IMO.

The Germans voted Hitler into power once upon a time, were they right to do so?

You Godwinned the thread, so you lose.

Especially as this is a lie, they didn't. There was a power grab that completed the Nazi takeover.