Abortion in Ireland: 2 years on

KiKi III

cournioni wrote: »

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.

If the unborn had a voice, it wouldn’t say anything, because at 12 weeks it does not have the capacity to think or feel.

You’re projecting your values on to the unborn which has no awareness of itself.

oyvey

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:

His reply was to this: "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?"

Hotblack Desiato

cournioni wrote: »

If the unborn had a voice, what would it say?

If my auntie had balls...

Irrespective of your definition of what it is... embryo, fetus, unborn baby, you are taking away a life.

No. A potential life.

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.

Having had a chance now to read through your post, I do see your point there.

The only thing I would say is that in the case of the children being created specifically for donation (bone marrow etc.) they really didn't have any choice in being used in that way, where a woman who is pregnant (excluding rape) would have would have had the choice of whether or not to risk getting pregnant.

Hotblack Desiato

cournioni wrote: »

Utterly disgusting.

So you think women aren't allowed to be happy that they finally gained autonomy over their own bodies, and are no longer required by law to risk their lives if they become pregnant?

Very strange indeed.

Anyway, you lost. Tough. You don't get to dictate to the majority of the Irish population what they can think, feel or do - or celebrate.

oyvey wrote: »

His reply was to this: "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?"

Yes, and?
Are you summarising the thread or something?

Bonniedog

KiKi III wrote: »

You’re projecting your values on to the unborn which has no awareness of itself.

Most neuroscientists claim that new born infants do not have awareness.

There is also a debate about when infants develop consciousness, with some arguing that it is not before at least five months.

So, is it okay to kill infants?

The Dutch, by the way, have already solved that moral dilemma by legalizing the euthanasia of Down Syndrome and other "undesirables." (Yes, one of its defenders did use that term.)

SusieBlue

cournioni wrote: »

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.

For some people, the responsible thing to do is to have a termination. There is nothing responsible to me about bringing an unwanted child that you don’t have the means to look after into the world.
You are projecting your own assumption of what the right thing to do is onto everyone else, and the problem with that is that everyone’s life experience and circumstances are different.

So while for you, the responsible thing to do might be to suck it up and go through with the pregnancy, that won’t apply to everyone. For some, the most responsible course of action will be an abortion.
This is a fact, and this is the beauty of choice. If you don’t like it you aren’t obliged to have one.
For those that need it, due to their own private circumstances that are none of our business, the choice is now there though.

And it isn’t taking a life, it’s a potential life. 1/4 pregnancies end in natural miscarriage in the first trimester. There is no guarantee that if left alone it would result in a live, healthy birth.
This is just another example of using emotionally manipulative language in an attempt to guilt someone into feeling bad for their position.

The world would be a much better place if people put the same amount of effort into fighting for the rights of born children as they do potential ones.

Danno

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No. A potential life.

Totally incorrect. A life with potential. A human life, no more, no less.

Risingshadoo

Abortion in Ireland, two years on? Unless you're an idiot, you wouldn't even touch this topic!

oyvey

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yes, and?
Are you summarising the thread or something?

Yes. You were trying to ridicule someone on something they hadn't actually said. But your understanding of who said what was incorrect. So I summarized it.

Bannasidhe

oyvey wrote: »

His reply was to this: "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?"

And when asked about the practicalities which surround every birth and every unexplained death of a registered person he was unable to say how his 'let's do this' would work in the real world.

People are registered. There are official documents that confirm we exist and our identity. It is illegal to not have these documents. They have to be produced at various, important, point over the course of our lives.

If the unborn are to be treated the same as the born they will need these documents. If life begins at fertilisation this is the point at which that life needs to be registered.
How does that work with an fertilised but not implanted embryo?
Is is an embryo. If it is 'alive' it needs to be registered. What happens if it is never implanted?

If an embryo is miscarried then it has died. It would need a death cert. If no obvious cause of death is apparent (and it usually isn't in miscarriages) a post mortem and inquest would be needed before a death cert is issued - same as happens with a born baby.
How would one carry out a post-mortem on a embryo?

The poster said it was 'workable' - but when asked exactly how failed to respond.

Hotblack Desiato

Danno wrote: »

Totally incorrect. A life with potential. A human life, no more, no less.

In your opinion.

KiKi III

Bonniedog wrote: »

Most neuroscientists claim that new born infants do not have awareness.

There is also a debate about when infants develop consciousness, with some arguing that it is not before at least five months.

So, is it okay to kill infants?

The Dutch, by the way, have already solved that moral dilemma by legalizing the euthanasia of Down Syndrome and other "undesirables." (Yes, one of its defenders did use that term.)

Newborns very obviously have feelings. They’ll cry to indicate hunger or pain from trapped wind, smile at a pleasurable fart, yawn when they feel tired...

SusieBlue

Bonniedog wrote: »

Most neuroscientists claim that new born infants do not have awareness.

There is also a debate about when infants develop consciousness, with some arguing that it is not before at least five months.

So, is it okay to kill infants?

The Dutch, by the way, have already solved that moral dilemma by legalizing the euthanasia of Down Syndrome and other "undesirables." (Yes, one of its defenders did use that term.)

No it’s not ok to kill infants, because born citizens have rights and legal protections. Murdering infants is illegal.

And as for your comment about the Dutch, that’s fake news of the highest order.
The do indeed allow euthanasia of critically ill children with a hopeless prognosis and who will suffer from long term pain.
There are extremely strict criteria to qualify for this, including:

1. The diagnosis and prognosis must be certain
2. Hopeless and unbearable suffering must be present
3. Diagnosis, prognosis, and unbearable suffering must be confirmed by at least one independent doctor.
4. Both parents must give informed consent.
5. The procedure must be performed in accordance with the accepted medical standard.

The most common conditions include severe spina bifida,
tracheo-esophageal fistula, Epidermolysis bullosa, and Anencephaly.
Only roughly 15/20 cases of neonatal euthanasia occur each year, in what’s usually very tragic circumstances.
If a child with Down’s syndrome qualified with all of the above, then the parents would be quite entitled to go about that course of action if they felt it was best.
Standard cases of Down’s syndrome would not qualify as long term suffering and a hopeless prognosis though, so other additional life limiting conditions would be involved.

What you might be getting confused with is the fact that the Dutch have ramped up their early prenatal testing for Downs Syndrome to give couples the option to terminate if they wish.
This was brought in in 2007 and despite this, the birth rate of children with Down’s syndrome has NOT decreased.
So couples are still going ahead with their pregnancies even though they have a clear early diagnosis, even though they have the option to terminate, and even though they know their child will have additional needs.

What you posted was just load of manipulative hyperbole, as if the Dutch are just killing off all their vulnerable newborns out of pure callousness.
It looks like some people learned nothing from the referendum.

Hotblack Desiato

oyvey wrote: »

Yes. You were trying to ridicule someone on something they hadn't actually said. But your understanding of who said what was incorrect. So I summarized it.

They agreed with a clearly ridiculous proposal which was put forward by Bannasidhe in the full knowledge that it was ridiculous.

cournioni

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If my auntie had balls...

No. A potential life.

Ridiculous response. Babies outside of the womb and grown people can not communicate despite being outside of the womb. You’re more or less saying it can’t communicate so it doesn’t matter what it’s feelings are.

It is a life. We all have potential, even you.

nozzferrahhtoo

cournioni wrote: »

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.

We also take away life when we eat meat and cut down trees for paper and when we medicate to kill infections and viruses and when we spread pesticides.

No one seems to be denying we are terminating a life. At least depending on what you mean by "life". What we are NOT doing is terminating a sentient agent of any kind. Which those of us who eat meat can not claim. We are not killing a person. We are preventing one from ever coming to be. That is the "reality" of abortion.

So if you were to actually want to change the position of a pro choice person at any time, you would have to come up with an argument for having moral or ethical concern for a non-person. For something with the sentience and consciousness equivalence of a rock. Do that and I would reverse my position over night, without hesitation, embarrassment or apology.

I am not sure dropping in periodically just to declare things "utterly disgusting" just because YOU do not like them... is quite going to get there.

SusieBlue

I actually just double checked and I was mistaken, there were just 16 cases of late term abortion and 2 cases of neonatal euthanasia between the years 2006-2014 in the Netherlands.

Before anyone comes screeching about full term babies being decapitated and torn limb from limb before being discarded in the bin, the reports state that the mothers of these babies were simply induced early and had normal births.
Their babies weren’t offered lifesaving care, they were just made comfortable and allowed to pass away peacefully with their parents & families.

Truly tragic circumstances all round and it’s actually quite disgusting that someone would try to exploit these heartbreaking cases to imply they occurred out of indifference or callousness, when that couldn’t be further from the truth.

The two cases of neonatal euthanasia were in regard to Herlitz type epidermolysis bullosa (EB), a fatal and untreatable illness.
In the 9 years since the commission was established, sixteen cases of late-term abortion and two cases of neonatal euthanasia have been reported to it, compared with just 22 cases of neonatal euthanasia reported to local authorities over nine years prior to the introduction of Regulations.

By all accounts it seems to be an extremely rare occurrence in the Netherlands.

cournioni

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So you think women aren't allowed to be happy that they finally gained autonomy over their own bodies, and are no longer required by law to risk their lives if they become pregnant?

Very strange indeed.

Anyway, you lost. Tough. You don't get to dictate to the majority of the Irish population what they can think, feel or do - or celebrate.

Yes, and?
Are you summarising the thread or something?

No, I think people shouldn’t be joyous about killing a life. Women have autonomy of their bodies, they can make life decisions prior to conceiving. What isn’t acceptable is killing. Nothing strange about that.

The “new Ireland” legalized killing - irrespective of how you like to brush it up, so we lost alright. Your horrible attitude sums up the arrogant, irresponsible and unaccountable Ireland we have now.

Bannasidhe

cournioni wrote: »

Women have autonomy of their bodies, they can make life decisions prior to conceiving.
.

If you think it is as cut and dried as that you are in a fantasy world.
Rape, failed contraception are just 2 reason women can not always make those 'life decisions'.
Ignorance is another - lack of basic knowledge about sex, and conception.

Men can also make these 'life decisions' by the way but the same onus is never placed on them.

LorelaiG

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you think it is as cut and dried as that you are in a fantasy world.
Rape, failed contraception are just 2 reason women can not always make those 'life decisions'.
Ignorance is another - lack of basic knowledge about sex, and conception.

Men can also make these 'life decisions' by the way but the same onus is never placed on them.

But sure contraception doesn't matter cos there's still a risk there innit?

nozzferrahhtoo

cournioni wrote: »

No, I think people shouldn’t be joyous about killing a life.

We aren't. YOUR inability to separate the political change, and the object of that change, is your failing not theirs.

Let us use an analogy to something less emotive to highlight the locus of your error. If heart bypass surgery was banned tomorrow I would campaign to get it back. And when we got it back I would celebrate the result. I would be over joyed.

Do you think that people actually having heart bypass pleases me or makes me joyful? Hell no. I would much rather live in a society where NO ONE ever has one. And I would support campaigns, like healthy eating awareness or creation of new sports facilities, to get people into a space where they never have one.

The same is true of abortion. I celebrate with much joy the fact the OPTION to have one was created by our political work and subsequent land slide win. A win supported, not hampered, by people like you spewing contempt rather than counter arguments when pressed.

I celebrated then. I celebrate now. And I earned the right to that celebration with the amount of work and campaigning and investment I made personally into getting that result.

But I would STILL prefer to live in a world where no one actually has any abortion. And I support campaigns and political movements that target that ideal.

While you rush to show your contempt for the people you disagree with I do the opposite. I like to plant a large flag in the fact that pro choice and anti choice campaigners share one very important piece of common ground. We pretty much all, on both sides, want no abortions to ever happen. We just disagree that making them illegal and forcing women not to have them.... is the method by which to best attain that goal. So now that your side lost, and lost bad, at the referendum we no longer need your breed of "us against them" narrative. We can put aside our differences and work towards this shared goal.

cournioni wrote: »

What isn’t acceptable is killing.

I trust you are full vegetarian or vegan then?

Experience_day

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I trust you are full vegetarian or vegan then?

Wut. A human is a animal now? Only a dullard would compare us to animals. Thank God we don't have direct democracy with idiotic views like that....

Quantum Erasure

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If my auntie had balls...

i was wondering what was going on for a second, i'm just after coming from that thread....

cournioni

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If you think it is as cut and dried as that you are in a fantasy world.
Rape, failed contraception are just 2 reason women can not always make those 'life decisions'.
Ignorance is another - lack of basic knowledge about sex, and conception.

Men can also make these 'life decisions' by the way but the same onus is never placed on them.

I never said it was, if you read back through my posts you’ll see that. However, there is always a risk of pregnancy when you have intercourse and rape aside, there needs to be some responsibility from the couple who consent to it. To want to kill a healthy unborn because it doesn’t suit your circumstance is the height of selfishness.

I agree men can make these life decisions and the only reason I said women because that is what is being outlined when the pro choicers here are making the argument of body autonomy for reasons to abort. Men need to be responsible too, there is absolutely no question about that.

oyvey

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I trust you are full vegetarian or vegan then?

Why are people always deflecting like this. If cournioni was a vegan would you concede to their argument?

cournioni

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We aren't. YOUR inability to separate the political change, and the object of that change, is your failing not theirs.

Let us use an analogy to something less emotive to highlight the locus of your error. If heart bypass surgery was banned tomorrow I would campaign to get it back. And when we got it back I would celebrate the result. I would be over joyed.

Do you think that people actually having heart bypass pleases me or makes me joyful? Hell no. I would much rather live in a society where NO ONE ever has one. And I would support campaigns, like healthy eating awareness or creation of new sports facilities, to get people into a space where they never have one.

The same is true of abortion. I celebrate with much joy the fact the OPTION to have one was created by our political work and subsequent land slide win. A win supported, not hampered, by people like you spewing contempt rather than counter arguments when pressed.

I celebrated then. I celebrate now. And I earned the right to that celebration with the amount of work and campaigning and investment I made personally into getting that result.

But I would STILL prefer to live in a world where no one actually has any abortion. And I support campaigns and political movements that target that ideal.

While you rush to show your contempt for the people you disagree with I do the opposite. I like to plant a large flag in the fact that pro choice and anti choice campaigners share one very important piece of common ground. We pretty much all, on both sides, want no abortions to ever happen. We just disagree that making them illegal and forcing women not to have them.... is the method by which to best attain that goal. So now that your side lost, and lost bad, at the referendum we no longer need your breed of "us against them" narrative. We can put aside our differences and work towards this shared goal.



I trust you are full vegetarian or vegan then?

It is plain and sickening to see that you are. Nothing to do with me or others that sees the reality of what’s happening, rather than trying to brush it under the carpet.

Your analogy of a heart bypass has nothing to do with taking a life away. That is where the issue is and why so many no voters have a problem with the repeal voters behavior. Same for the vegan/vegetarian analogy, completely missing the point and very odd equating humans to animals.

KiKi III

cournioni wrote: »

I agree men can make these life decisions and the only reason I said women because that is what is being outlined when the pro choicers here are making the argument of body autonomy for reasons to abort. Men need to be responsible too, there is absolutely no question about that.

They need to be, but they’re not. I’ve had plenty of guys complain that they hate condoms and don’t want to wear them. I’ve had pregnancy scares with two separate guys where before I even did a test they were pressuring me into having an abortion. And I know plenty of guys who have kids who don’t live up to their obligations in terms of spending time with their kids and paying maintenance.

So you can create this ideal world in your head where everyone lives up to all their responsibilities all the time but it’s not reality and who has to pick up the pieces when a guy walks out on a pregnant woman? She does.

oyvey

KiKi III wrote: »

They need to be, but they’re not. I’ve had plenty of guys complain that they hate condoms and don’t want to wear them. I’ve had pregnancy scares with two separate guys where before I even did a test they were pressuring me into having an abortion. And I know plenty of guys who have kids who don’t live up to their obligations in terms of spending time with their kids and paying maintenance.
...

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not suggesting these things as reasons to abort are you?

cournioni

KiKi III wrote: »

They need to be, but they’re not. I’ve had plenty of guys complain that they hate condoms and don’t want to wear them. I’ve had pregnancy scares with two separate guys where before I even did a test they were pressuring me into having an abortion. And I know plenty of guys who have kids who don’t live up to their obligations in terms of spending time with their kids and paying maintenance.

So you can create this ideal world in your head where everyone lives up to all their responsibilities all the time but it’s not reality and who has to pick up the pieces when a guy walks out on a pregnant woman? She does.

All the more reason to abstain from even associating with those men. Not all men are dopes like the ones you’ve depicted above.

I don’t need to create an ideal world, all it takes is a little thinking before doing and taking responsibility for my own actions. Everything else is beyond my control.

I sincerely would hope you would not consider aborting an unborn based on any of the above.