Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

ohnonotgmail

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

While you're trying to make respect for the life of the unborn seem ridiculous, you've scored an own-goal, because none of what you've listed would be unworkable, even though it's clearly impractical.

Keep owning yourself.

if a fetus and a baby are equivalent we should be doing for a fetus everything we do for a baby. we don't though, they are not treated in any way similar apart from the 8th amendment which is now thankfully gone. why is that?

nozzferrahhtoo

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

Yes, let's do that.

Think I will pass myself.

I think I will continue to apply moral and ethical concern to sentient agents, and withhold it from non-sentient things.

A pregnant woman is an example of the former. A 12 week fetus is the latter.

Bannasidhe

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

While you're trying to make respect for the life of the unborn seem ridiculous, you've scored an own-goal, because none of what you've listed would be unworkable, even though it's clearly impractical.

Keep owning yourself.

Explain how it would work then.

How would officialdom determine what date to put on the 'was fertilised on this date' certificates?

In the case of IVF what would be done about fertilised but not implanted embryos?
Do frozen embryos get a cert?
If they are never implanted what happens then?? A 'state of frozen limbo' cert? Will embryo benefit be paid for them?

Explain how to do a post-mortem on an embryo.

Suggest wording for the 'sorry for your loss, pay the money back' letters.

If embryos are deemed to be = born children what does practical have to do with it? They should officially be in the system from the beginning.

Hotblack Desiato

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

Yes, let's do that.

Simply idiotic.

Hotblack Desiato

amdublin wrote: »

Refresh my memory someone.

Did this really happen?

It did really happen and rightly so.

Women gaining control of their own bodies, whether pregnant or not, was something to celebrate.

Women no longer having to put their life at risk during a wanted pregnancy was something to celebrate.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

SusieBlue must have made up the quotes in post #664

If Boards and the No campaign are any evidence, so-called "pro-lifers" just don't do truth or honesty or facts.

MontgomeryClift

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Explain how it would work then.

How would officialdom determine what date to put on the 'was fertilised on this date' certificates?

In the case of IVF what would be done about fertilised but not implanted embryos?
Do frozen embryos get a cert?
If they are never implanted what happens then?? A 'state of frozen limbo' cert? Will embryo benefit be paid for them?

Explain how to do a post-mortem on an embryo.

Suggest wording for the 'sorry for your loss, pay the money back' letters.

If embryos are deemed to be = born children what does practical have to do with it? They should officially be in the system from the beginning.

Life in Ireland before the repeal of the 8th was not some administrative nightmare.

This is another attempt at dragging us down a rabbit hole of whataboutery and imaginary scenarios.

I find it's enough simply to draw this stuff out and let the neutral observer see it.

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

Simply idiotic.

Hot take!

ohnonotgmail

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

Life in Ireland before the repeal of the 8th was not some administrative nightmare.

This is another attempt at dragging us down a rabbit hole of whataboutery and imaginary scenarios.

I find it's enough simply to draw this stuff out and let the neutral observer see it.

indeed it wasn't. Apart from the 8th Irish society did not consider a fetus to be the equivalent of a baby and for very good reason.

Bannasidhe

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

Life in Ireland before the repeal of the 8th was not some administrative nightmare.

In pre- repeal Ireland it wasn't until birth that a fetus became officially a living baby - with one important exception.

None of the administrative records that are attached to a living person were applied to them before birth.
Officially they did not exist as a person - with one exception, and even then they were not classified as a baby but simply as 'unborn'.

LorelaiG

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It did really happen and rightly so.

Women gaining control of their own bodies, whether pregnant or not, was something to celebrate.

Women no longer having to put their life at risk during a wanted pregnancy was something to celebrate.




If Boards and the No campaign are any evidence, so-called "pro-lifers" just don't do truth or honesty or facts.

People seem to forget that the 8th was about more than abortion for some women. While it was one of the most important parts of getting the 8th repealed there was also the fact that women had no bodily autonomy during pregnancy and birth either. If you wanted to try to birth one way and a doctor deemed it dangerous they could drag you to court and demand you give birth their way. They could cut you open without your consent while you were giving birth.

Hotblack Desiato

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

Life in Ireland before the repeal of the 8th was not some administrative nightmare.

What in the name of jaysus are you on about.

None of those things proposed happened when the 8th was in place.

Even with the 8th in place, legally an embryo or foetus was not a child until birth.

oyvey

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What in the name of jaysus are you on about.

None of those things proposed happened when the 8th was in place.

Even with the 8th in place, legally an embryo or foetus was not a child until birth.

I think you’re asking the wrong person.

Bannasidhe listed those things.

Bannasidhe

SusieBlue wrote: »

If you are going to argue that fetuses are people in their own right (which I don’t necessarily agree with but I’ll play along), then why don’t we treat them as we do born, living, breathing children?

.

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

Yes, let's do that.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So that would be child benefit from the date of conception then?
PPNS numbers.
Some form of official State certification for the embryo.

What happens in the case of the 1 in 4 miscarriages? Will letters be sent out looking for the money to be paid back?
Will there be inquests? Post-mortems?
Death certificates?

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

none of what you've listed would be unworkable, even though it's clearly impractical.

Keep owning yourself.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Explain how it would work then.

How would officialdom determine what date to put on the 'was fertilised on this date' certificates?

In the case of IVF what would be done about fertilised but not implanted embryos?
Do frozen embryos get a cert?
If they are never implanted what happens then?? A 'state of frozen limbo' cert? Will embryo benefit be paid for them?

Explain how to do a post-mortem on an embryo.

Suggest wording for the 'sorry for your loss, pay the money back' letters.

If embryos are deemed to be = born children what does practical have to do with it? They should officially be in the system from the beginning.

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

Life in Ireland before the repeal of the 8th was not some administrative nightmare.

oyvey wrote: »

I think you’re asking the wrong person.

Bannasidhe listed those things.

Context is everything.

Bannasidhe inquired about the practicalities of treating an embryo or fetus exactly the same as a born child - which the poster I was responding to advocates doing and claimed was workable.

When questioned said poster turned out to be short on actual details about how it would work and seemed to be under the impression that such a system was in place before Repeal.

Can you explain how it would work in real life?

Bonniedog

LorelaiG wrote: »

They could cut you open without your consent while you were giving birth.

And this happened when?

And yet people like you got upset when pro life people pointed out the actual reality of what happens in an abortion.

oyvey

LorelaiG wrote: »

People seem to forget that the 8th was about more than abortion for some women. While it was one of the most important parts of getting the 8th repealed there was also the fact that women had no bodily autonomy during pregnancy and birth either. If you wanted to try to birth one way and a doctor deemed it dangerous they could drag you to court and demand you give birth their way. They could cut you open without your consent while you were giving birth.

I don't think anyone who is anti-abortion (at least not that I've seen) has been arguing in favor of those kind of practices. It's been specifically about abortion.

ohnonotgmail

oyvey wrote: »

I don't think anyone who is anti-abortion (at least not that I've seen) has been arguing in favor of those kind of practices. It's been specifically about abortion.

they argued against the repeal of the 8th that allowed stuff like that to happen.

Igotadose

Bonniedog wrote: »

And yet people like you got upset when pro life people pointed out the actual reality of what happens in an abortion.

Laughable. "People like us" (uhuh) took issue with posters outside the Mater in Dublin because they were gross exaggeration of a rare event. Not what happens *all the time.* What *might* happen in a rare event, and badly overexaggerated.

But, hey, control control control what forced birth is all about.

Bannasidhe

oyvey wrote: »

I don't think anyone who is anti-abortion (at least not that I've seen) has been arguing in favor of those kind of practices. It's been specifically about abortion.

Yet the 8th Amendment did not confine it's impact to 'strictly about abortion'.
It inserted itself right into the heart of maternity care.
As was warned would happen back in the 80s.

SusieBlue

MontgomeryClift wrote: »

Yes, let's do that.

If we’re treating them exactly as we do born children, then we do not allow them to use the organs of another persons body to stay alive without that persons consent. Because bodily integrity comes before another persons right to life, even if it means a child will die.
Glad we agree on the matter.

oyvey

SusieBlue wrote: »

If we’re treating them exactly as we do born children, then we do not allow them to use the organs of another persons body to stay alive without that persons consent. Because bodily integrity comes before another persons right to life, even if it means a child will die.
Glad we agree on the matter.

I'm not sure that's how we treat born children. When has a child who was using the organs of another persons body to stay alive been subsequently stopped from doing so, causing their death?

SusieBlue

oyvey wrote: »

I'm not sure that's how we treat born children. When has a child who was using the organs of another persons body to stay alive been subsequently stopped from doing so, causing their death?

Children die every day because the need a new kidney or a new heart etc. We still do not force unwilling people to donate an organ though, even if it would save a child’s life. We have a right to say no.
A woman should not lose that right just because she happens to be pregnant.

It’s quite ironic that people are calling for women to be forced to give use of their bodies to an embryo against their will, so it might survive, while born children die every single day waiting on transplants.

Actual people should always be more important than potential people. Women’s needs, wants and wishes are more important than that of an embryo. That’s what it comes down to.

oyvey

SusieBlue wrote: »

Children die every day because the need a new kidney or a new heart etc. We still do not force unwilling people to donate an organ though, even if it would save a child’s life. We have a right to say no.
A woman should not lose that right just because she happens to be pregnant. ...

But that's not what's being talked about here though.

You said that if we were to treat them like born children "we do not allow them to use the organs of another persons body to stay alive without that persons consent". Before a child is born the dependency is already established. So then you would have to take that dependency away in order to treat them like a born child.

So I would ask again, when has a child who was using the organs of another persons body to stay alive been subsequently stopped from doing so, causing their death?

SusieBlue

oyvey wrote: »

But that's not what's being talked about here though.

You said that if we were to treat them like born children "we do not allow them to use the organs of another persons body to stay alive without that persons consent". Before a child is born the dependency is already established. So then you would have to take that dependency away in order to treat them like a born child.

So I would ask again, when has a child who was using the organs of another persons body to stay alive been subsequently stopped from doing so, causing their death?

When the dependency is established is irrelevant. It’s hardly a woman’s fault that biology dictates that she be the one to carry the child.
Her bodily integrity is just as valid when she pregnant than when she isn’t, that’s the point that’s being made.
Hence she should not have to give use of her organs to another entity if she isn’t willing, same as we don’t force people to donate organs to others if they aren’t willing. Forced organ donation isn’t a thing.
Forced incubation shouldn’t be a thing either.

Our individual autonomy trumps other people’s right to life, that should be (and thankfully now is) the case regardless of whether a woman is pregnant or not.

oyvey

SusieBlue wrote: »

When the dependency is established is irrelevant....

It's not about when it's established, it's about the fact that it already is established when talking about unborn. So we can't deny them a donation, because they already have it from the get-go.

So to treat them as a born child as you put it, you would have to be talking about removing the dependency from the unborn.

So that's why I'm asking you, when has a child who was using the organs of another persons body to stay alive been subsequently stopped from doing so, causing their death?

SusieBlue

oyvey wrote: »

It's not about when it's established, it's about the fact that it already is established when talking about unborn. So we can't deny them a donation, because they already have it from the get-go.

So to treat them as a born child as you put it, you would have to be talking about removing the dependency from the unborn.

So that's why I'm asking you, when has a child who was using the organs of another persons body to stay alive been subsequently stopped from doing so, causing their death?

Parents of children with serious illnesses such as rare cancers are sometimes recommended to have a second child in order to donate platelets, bone marrow, organs, muscle tissue and cord blood to the elder child.
If the younger child decides they no longer want to do this, the older child will die.
The whole purpose of the second child being born was to help the older child survive, but what if they don’t want to do it any more?
There was even a book and a movie about such a case called My Sisters Keeper, where the younger child earned medical emancipation from her parents because she no longer wanted to donate to her sister. It was based on a true story
It can and does happen.

I see what you were doing there, it was a clear attempt to catch me out. But I standby what I said.
The younger child has a right to say no. Women have a right to say no. No one should be forced to give use of their body to another entity if they don’t want to.

oyvey

SusieBlue wrote: »

Parents of children with serious illnesses such as rare cancers are sometimes recommended to have a second child in order to donate platelets, bone marrow, organs, muscle tissue and cord blood to the elder child.
If the younger child decides they no longer want to do this, the older child will die.
The whole purpose of the second child being born was to help the older child survive, but what if they don’t want to do it any more?
There was even a book and a movie about such a case called My Sisters Keeper, where the younger child earned medical emancipation from her parents because she no longer wanted to donate to her sister. It was based on a true story
It can and does happen.

I see what you were doing there, it was a clear attempt to catch me out. But I standby what I said.
The younger child has a right to say no. Women have a right to say no. No one should be forced to give use of their body to another entity if they don’t want to.

That sounds a little paranoid. It's just a discussion. I was trying keep it focused on one point.

SusieBlue

oyvey wrote: »

That sounds a little paranoid. It's just a discussion. I was trying keep it focused on one point.

Fair enough, glad we cleared it up.

Hotblack Desiato

oyvey wrote: »

I think you’re asking the wrong person.

Bannasidhe listed those things.

Yes she suggested a list of obviously ridiculous things, based upon the suggestion that a foetus or embryo is actually a baby and should be treated as such

To which he replied, "Yes, let's do that." :rolleyes:

Bonniedog wrote: »

And this happened when?

Episiotomies without consent happened all the time

Inductions or forceps without consent happened all the time

Caesarians without consent happened occasionally.

Pro-life posters don't have a clue about the realities of pregnancy and birth in Ireland under the 8th amendment.

LorelaiG

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yes she suggested a list of obviously ridiculous things, based upon the suggestion that a foetus or embryo is actually a baby and should be treated as such

To which he replied, "Yes, let's do that." :rolleyes:




Episiotomies without consent happened all the time

Inductions or forceps without consent happened all the time

Caesarians without consent happened occasionally.

Pro-life posters don't have a clue about the realities of pregnancy and birth in Ireland under the 8th amendment.

We had a case only during the repeal campaign where a woman was brought to court for refusing a ceserean section. Thankfully the court ruled in her favour.

cournioni

SusieBlue wrote: »

It is if you are forcing that woman to carry that baby against her will. That is conclusively putting the embryo before the welfare of the woman.

Cause it’s not just ‘letting an unborn baby live’ is it? Said unborn baby needs use of this woman’s body and organs to be able to to do that.
And again, forcing a woman to do that against her will is prioritising the embryo over the living. breathing owner of the womb.

Responsibility out the window in most cases. If the unborn had a voice, what would it say? Irrespective of your definition of what it is... embryo, fetus, unborn baby, you are taking away a life.

The priority should be: not killing something. If a woman does not want to carry a baby then the correct precautions must be taken to avoid that from happening. Rape and health issues aside, there can be no reasonable argument for taking a healthy life away irrespective of who is carrying what. Killing should never be a choice.

cournioni

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It did really happen and rightly so.

Utterly disgusting.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If Boards and the No campaign are any evidence, so-called "pro-lifers" just don't do truth or honesty or facts.

Au contraire.