Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Keep abortion out of Ireland

17810121365

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    Keylem wrote: »

    Is Hell big enough?? Whether or not it's legal, its a sin against the 6th commandment!!!

    You're bringing the 'old tablets' into the abortion debate. And hell. How contemporary. :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,091 ✭✭✭hattoncracker


    snafuk35 wrote: »

    Still offers no justification or sufficient argument for killing a blameless child.



    I have, and many of them do not endorse killing an innocent child as a viable solution to any crisis.



    The right to life for innocent Children is every citizens 'business'.



    No, they should have recieved proper education and support that killing an innocent blameless child cannot be justified, and is not a viable remedy for their problem.



    Prosecution and enforcement of the law is a matter for the state, whether it personally suits an individual or not. I do not support the death penalty.
    Properly run, unbiased Crisis Pregnancy Centres offer impartial advice. They do not try and talk you out of it during counselling.

    Are you going to adopt all these innocent children? Or if after the pregnancy is over, are you going to be there at 3am to help her feed, going to take her to rape counselling, be there when she wakes up in the middle of the night screaming as the recounts the attack? What will you tell her if she says after the pregnancy that she should've had an abortion? What if it's all too much for her and she commits suicide because she thinks its wrong not to look at her child without feeling hatred?

    By taking away her choice to have the abortion, you essentially take responsibility for her future. If you are not prepared to do that then you can't make that decision for her.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 35 La Petite Fleur


    Properly run, unbiased Crisis Pregnancy Centres offer impartial advice. They do not try and talk you out of it during counselling.

    'Properly run, unbiased Crisis Pregnancy Centres centres' would not claim that killing a blameless child is a solution for anything.
    Are you going to adopt all these innocent children? Or if after the pregnancy is over, are you going to be there at 3am to help her feed, going to take her to rape counselling, be there when she wakes up in the middle of the night screaming as the recounts the attack? What will you tell her if she says after the pregnancy that she should've had an abortion? What if it's all too much for her and she commits suicide because she thinks its wrong not to look at her child without feeling hatred?

    By taking away her choice to have the abortion, you essentially take responsibility for her future. If you are not prepared to do that then you can't make that decision for her.

    I could be equally facetious and ask are you going to carry out all the abortion and killing of all these children, make adoption ilegal, and be there when they wakes up screaming with guilt year after year or try to commit suicide ? and ask since when did you get to make the decision which children live or die, but that would be an equally poor argument, so I'll leave you to it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,520 ✭✭✭Tea 1000


    Properly run, unbiased Crisis Pregnancy Centres offer impartial advice. They do not try and talk you out of it during counselling.

    Are you going to adopt all these innocent children? Or if after the pregnancy is over, are you going to be there at 3am to help her feed, going to take her to rape counselling, be there when she wakes up in the middle of the night screaming as the recounts the attack? What will you tell her if she says after the pregnancy that she should've had an abortion? What if it's all too much for her and she commits suicide because she thinks its wrong not to look at her child without feeling hatred?

    By taking away her choice to have the abortion, you essentially take responsibility for her future. If you are not prepared to do that then you can't make that decision for her.
    You think abortion prevents all this? You think an abortion is like an "Unrape" button?


  • Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭SonOfAdam


    PoleStar wrote: »
    I love it how people put out statements worded as if they are fact. I thought from memory that this was absolute rubbish.

    So I did look it up just to remind myself:

    Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and
    substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the
    mother. Under current legal precedent, this exception includes
    where there is a clear and substantial risk to the life of the mother
    arising from a threat of suicide. You should undertake a full assessment
    of any such risk in light of the clinical research on this issue.


    So in fact the Medical Council Statement does state again that doctors should be guided by the judgment in the X case i.e. that abortion may be performed not just where it will occur as an inevitable medication side effect e.g. chemotherapy to save a woman's life from cancer, but also where the threat to the woman's life is from suicide.


    So perhaps YOU need to be honest.


    The above has nothing to do with medical reasons - they are simply stating the law in relation to the X case. If you read point 21.4 of the Medical Council guidelines on abortion it does not differ from what I said.
    21.4 In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where
    therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy)
    is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the
    baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving. In these
    exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to
    terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while
    making every effort to preserve the life of the baby
    .


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    SonOfAdam wrote: »
    I don't see how that differs from 21.4
    SonOfAdam wrote: »
    The above has nothing to do with medical reasons - they are simply stating the law in relation to the X case. If you read point 21.4 of the Medical Council guidelines on abortion it does not differ from what I said.
    21.4 In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where
    therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy)
    is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the
    baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving. In these
    exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to
    terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while
    making every effort to preserve the life of the baby
    .

    There is a big difference between what Article 21.4 says and what you claimed in your original post. You claimed:
    SonOfAdam wrote: »
    The Medical Council has stated that there is no medical reason that warrants an abortion (intentional terminationof life) but acknowledges there are rare cases where the death of the unborn is the unintentional side-effect of certain treatments.

    First of all, the article in question makes no comment regarding conditions that may necessitate an abortion. Nowhere does the Council state that there is no medical reason that warrants an abortion.

    Furthermore, 21.4, states that there are times when abortion can be necessary in order to save the mother's life. You have wrongly claimed that the article acknowledges that there are cases where medical treatments result in the death of the foetus.

    What the article actually says is that there are conditions where therapeutic abortion (an intentional act btw) maybe necessary in order to begin treatment of the mother's symptoms. The comment about making every effort to preserve the life of the baby indicates that making a decision to terminate the pregnancy is a last resort after all other options have been exhausted. It is not a comment about intention.

    As I have said previously, there are real medical reasons both physical and psychological to consider when debating abortion. They must be considered in conjunction with the sociological and legal factors but they should not be dismissed out of hand.


  • Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭SonOfAdam


    ^^ The atricle mentions therapeutic intervention not therapeutic abortion. That intervention may include termination but may not and is therefore not an intentional act in every case. Also, there are interventions, such as ectopic pregnancies, while resulting in the termination of life are not considered abortion but essential treatments to save the life of the mother.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    SonOfAdam wrote: »
    ^^ The atricle mentions therapeutic intervention not therapeutic abortion. That intervention may include termination but may not and is therefore not an intentional act in every case. Also, there are interventions, such as ectopic pregnancies, while resulting in the termination of life are not considered abortion but essential treatments to save the life of the mother.

    Yes, therapeutic abortion is a subset of therapeutic intervention, however, you claimed that there were no medical reasons for an intentional abortion, only unintentional side-effects. Therapeutic abortion is an intentional act to terminate the pregnancy.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,571 ✭✭✭newmug


    Well if the mother is single, then she's going to hell anyway. No sex before marriage, right?

    Wrong - Although its a sin, it can be forgiven. However you will still have a dead child.
    If she's married legally she can't give up the kid for adoption..

    Well then change the law, dont murder a baby.

    If she gets divorced in order to give the child up for adoption, she's also going to hell.


    More athiestic ignorance. Divorce is not forbidden in Christianity if there is just reason, eg. one spouse having an affair or abusing the other.

    Do you think it would be equally pointless to imprison a man for murder since it won't bring back the victim?

    Also, a woman who aborts may well want children.

    Imprisoning murderers serves two purposes: A) Keeps the public safe from being murdered, B) Serves justice for the family.

    In the case of abortion, its extremely unlikely that the aborter would be a danger to anyone else, and they ARE the family. So jail would not be a suitable punishment.

    SonOfAdam wrote: »
    ^^ The atricle mentions therapeutic intervention not therapeutic abortion. That intervention may include termination but may not and is therefore not an intentional act in every case. Also, there are interventions, such as ectopic pregnancies, while resulting in the termination of life are not considered abortion but essential treatments to save the life of the mother.

    Why cant we have theraputic intervention to save the baby's life?


    With the attitude of some of the pro-abortion posters on here, we might aswell start killing old people and the disabled when they become an inconvenience to the rest of us:rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Yes, therapeutic abortion is a subset of therapeutic intervention, however, you claimed that there were no medical reasons for an intentional abortion, only unintentional side-effects. Therapeutic abortion is an intentional act to terminate the pregnancy.

    I understand what you are trying to correct here, in that to say that 'there is no medical reason for abortion' is technically inaccurate. However, I think the big issue is the reality of this being a real issue in terms of introducing abortion. For example, with an ectopic pregnancy, doctors perform a procedure that terminates the pregnancy. This does not require abortion to be legal. As far as I'm aware this procedure is not met by legal objection?

    The issue I think with much of the pro abortion lobby, is that they seem to imply that women are dying because they can't get access to abortions. The reality, is that abortion has little or nothing to do with saving the lives of mothers. That idea is a red herring.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,091 ✭✭✭hattoncracker


    newmug wrote: »
    Well if the mother is single, then she's going to hell anyway. No sex before marriage, right?

    Wrong - Although its a sin, it can be forgiven. However you will still have a dead child.
    If she's married legally she can't give up the kid for adoption..

    Well then change the law, dont murder a baby.

    If she gets divorced in order to give the child up for adoption, she's also going to hell.


    More athiestic ignorance. Divorce is not forbidden in Christianity if there is just reason, eg. one spouse having an affair or abusing the other.

    Do you think it would be equally pointless to imprison a man for murder since it won't bring back the victim?

    Also, a woman who aborts may well want children.

    Imprisoning murderers serves two purposes: A) Keeps the public safe from being murdered, B) Serves justice for the family.

    In the case of abortion, its extremely unlikely that the aborter would be a danger to anyone else, and they ARE the family. So jail would not be a suitable punishment.

    SonOfAdam wrote: »
    ^^ The atricle mentions therapeutic intervention not therapeutic abortion. That intervention may include termination but may not and is therefore not an intentional act in every case. Also, there are interventions, such as ectopic pregnancies, while resulting in the termination of life are not considered abortion but essential treatments to save the life of the mother.

    Why cant we have theraputic intervention to save the baby's life?


    With the attitude of some of the pro-abortion posters on here, we might aswell start killing old people and the disabled when they become an inconvenience to the rest of us:rolleyes:


    Wrong. Im Catholic. Not atheist. I worship God in my own way. My body is my temple and I do not appreciate being told by others what to do with it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I understand what you are trying to correct here, in that to say that 'there is no medical reason for abortion' is technically inaccurate. However, I think the big issue is the reality of this being a real issue in terms of introducing abortion. For example, with an ectopic pregnancy, doctors perform a procedure that terminates the pregnancy. This does not require abortion to be legal. As far as I'm aware this procedure is not met by legal objection?

    Thanks, Jimi, my head was starting to get sore from banging it against that wall. I see where you're coming from about the relevance of this in the broader debate but I'm not sure that I agree. Trisomy syndromes, for example, can be dangerous for pregnant women and in some circumstances continuing the pregnancy may create a serious risk to the mother's life. Since the incidence of such syndromes (e.g. Down's syndrome) increases exponentially with the age of the mother and given the ongoing trend of women having children for the first time later in life, the risk presented by such problems is likely to increase.

    You're right about the ectopic pregnancy part but there are other conditions where there may be serious risk to the mother which have not been legislated for which is how we started down this road in the first place.

    JimiTime wrote: »
    The issue I think with much of the pro abortion lobby, is that they seem to imply that women are dying because they can't get access to abortions. The reality, is that abortion has little or nothing to do with saving the lives of mothers. That idea is a red herring.

    I agree. The MMR (Maternal Mortality Ration) monitored by the WHO shows no evidence of this, at least in this country. While it has been found that unsafe abortion (usually in countries with severe anti-abortion laws) is responsible for about 13% of cases, the vast majority are due to other risk factors such as eclampsia and infection and are generally correlative to the state of the country's health system. The most recent figures show that Ireland has an MMR of 5, in line with other European countries.

    The thing is though, Jimi, you're right about the detriment of such obvious red herrings being introduced in this debate but equally, appeals to emotion and religion don't do the anti-abortion side any favours either.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    The thing is though, Jimi, you're right about the detriment of such obvious red herrings being introduced in this debate but equally, appeals to emotion and religion don't do the anti-abortion side any favours either.

    So you'd like us to discuss this in the Christianity Forum without apppeals to religion? :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    PDN wrote: »
    So you'd like us to discuss this in the Christianity Forum without apppeals to religion? :)

    It sounded better in my head. :)

    What I mean is that I agree with the Obama quote posted by Zombrex, particularly:

    "...if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

    In my experience the majority of the posters on the Christianity forum are capable of having a rational discussion with us godless ones but if I can't accept your premises then I can't agree with your conclusions, so arguing that abortion is wrong because your theology demands it is always going to be a non-starter.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,267 ✭✭✭gimmebroadband


    Wrong. Im Catholic. Not atheist. I worship God in my own way. My body is my temple and I do not appreciate being told by others what to do with it.

    1 Corinthians 6:19-20
    Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    newmug wrote: »
    More athiestic ignorance. Divorce is not forbidden in Christianity if there is just reason, eg. one spouse having an affair or abusing the other.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the bible teach that only marital infidelity is a just cause for divorce. Matt 19:9


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't the bible teach that only marital infidelity is a just cause for divorce. Matt 19:9

    No, it teaches that infidelity is the only justification for remarriage after divorce.


  • Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭SonOfAdam


    oldrnwisr wrote:
    Thanks, Jimi, my head was starting to get sore from banging it against that wall

    Knock yourself out :rolleyes:

    “As obstetricians and gynaecologists we affirm that there are no medical
    circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, circumstances in which
    the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of
    her unborn child.”
    Professor John Bonnar, Trinity College, Dublin;
    Professor Kieran O’Driscoll, University College, Dublin;
    Professor Eamonn O’Dwyer, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at
    University College, Galway;
    Julia Vaughan, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist

    Not sure if they are appealing to emotion or religion so you may want to discount their opinion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,267 ✭✭✭gimmebroadband


    PDN wrote: »
    No, it teaches that infidelity is the only justification for remarriage after divorce.


    Divorce may apply to failed Civil marriages! However, the CC teaches that it doesn't apply to Sacramental Marriages!
    Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery
    (Luke 16:18; cf. Mark 10:11–12).

    St. Paul was equally insistent on this fact, declaring,
    Thus a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive
    (Rom. 7:2–3).


    more.....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Divorce may apply to failed Civil marriages! However, the CC teaches that it doesn't apply to Sacramental Marriages!
    I was answering a question about the Bible, not what the RCC teaches.
    St. Paul was equally insistent on this fact, declaring,
    No, I don't think Paul ever made a distinction between civil marriages and 'sacramental' marriages. In fact, given the date at which Paul wrote Romans, it would be highly likely that many of his readers were already married (ie a civil marriage) before their conversion to Christianity.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,267 ✭✭✭gimmebroadband


    PDN wrote: »
    I was answering a question about the Bible, not what the RCC teaches.


    No, I don't think Paul ever made a distinction between civil marriages and 'sacramental' marriages. In fact, given the date at which Paul wrote Romans, it would be highly likely that many of his readers were already married (ie a civil marriage) before their conversion to Christianity.


    The CC's teaching IS based on Scriptures, not all written down! Sorry for being OT..... as you were! ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    SonOfAdam wrote: »
    Knock yourself out :rolleyes:

    “As obstetricians and gynaecologists we affirm that there are no medical
    circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, circumstances in which
    the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of
    her unborn child.”
    Professor John Bonnar, Trinity College, Dublin;
    Professor Kieran O’Driscoll, University College, Dublin;
    Professor Eamonn O’Dwyer, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at
    University College, Galway;
    Julia Vaughan, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist

    Not sure if they are appealing to emotion or religion so you may want to discount their opinion.

    No, it's not an appeal to emotion or religion (not that that comment was directed at you), more an appeal to authority. Even so, the most accurate description of your post is a deceitful quote-mine.

    First of all, you fail to mention that when Professor Bonnar is talking about "direct abortion" he is referring to:

    "It is actually intervening, usually in a normal pregnancy, to get rid of the
    pregnancy, to get rid of the foetus. That is what we would consider the direct procurement of an abortion. In other words, it’s an unwanted baby and, therefore, you intervene to end its life. That has never been a part of the practice of Irish obstetrics and I hope it never will be."

    Furthermore, Professor Bonnar clarified that 1992 comment you quoted in 2000 by saying:

    "In current obstetrical practice rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention is required at a stage in pregnancy when there will be little or no prospect for the survival of the baby, due to extreme immaturity. In these exceptional situations failure to intervene may result in the death of both mother and baby. We consider that there is a fundamental difference between abortion carried out with the intention of taking the life of the baby, for example for social reasons, and the unavoidable death of the baby resulting from essential treatment to protect the life of the mother."


    Also, the evidence given to the Dail Committee on Abortion goes against your implication:


    Dr. Sean Daly - Master of the Coombe Women's Hospital

    "I think that if we go down the road of trying to slice up the
    term ‘abortion’, then we are only going to complicate things
    for ourselves even more. At the end of the day, we do need
    to be able to practise and if this committee, and ultimately if
    the country or however it is constructed, decides that there is
    never an indication for abortion or for the premature ending
    of a pregnancy, then I certainly believe that is going to make
    if difficult to practise in the current environment in which we
    practise."


    Dr. Declan Keane - Master of the National Maternity Hospital

    "HELLP syndrome, which is a variant of pre-eclamptic
    toxaemia, a condition where the mother has severe hypertension
    where the liver is involved … We had a case in 1998,
    as I say, where the woman was severely ill with this
    condition. She was transferred to a neighbouring general
    hospital under the care of the liver specialist and the medical
    opinion that we got from the liver specialist was that this
    woman was going to die if her pregnancy did not end. It was
    a very difficult decision to make. We obviously had to not
    only talk at length with the parents involved but with our
    legal team as well. But there was no other way in which this
    woman would have lived if the pregnancy had continued.
    Continuing his evidence Dr Keane referred to another rare condition:

    I note that the Green Paper and indeed the submissions have
    talked about other possible indications which would include
    severe cardiac disease in pregnancy and Eisenmenger’s
    syndrome has been mentioned. The Coombe Hospital had a
    woman who died from Eisenmenger’s syndrome only last year
    and I suspect that the master of the Coombe may wish to
    make a comment on that later on. Certainly in my experience
    in Oxford we unfortunately again had to terminate two
    pregnancies in women with Eisenmenger’s syndrome because
    the real risks to the woman, if the pregnancy had continued,
    were considerable."


    Dr. Peter McKenna - Master of the Rotunda Hospital

    "I think I can say unequivocally that possibly once a year a
    woman would be seen in this country who, if her pregnancy
    is not terminated within a matter of probably hours or days,
    will die from a complication. The complications that I would
    allude to would be the one which we have personal
    experience of recently and that is, fulminating high blood
    pressure associated with heart failure, associated with a molar
    pregnancy and a live, an ordinary ongoing pregnancy, a most
    unusual condition, one which I will probably never ever see
    again. But the only way in which that woman could be
    stopped from dying of heart failure that day was by
    terminating the pregnancy."


    I think I'll leave it at that. If you want to read all the testimony you can, here:

    The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Consitution - Fifth Progress Report

    Next time, you might want to investigate what the research and the doctors are actually saying instead of pulling soundbites from pamphlets.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    Divorce may apply to failed Civil marriages! However, the CC teaches that it doesn't apply to Sacramental Marriages!

    You see this is the problem I have with "catholic teaching" which is why I phrased my question the way I did. The doctrine of the catholic church at some level falls under the heading of what PZ Myers described as "The Courtier's Reply".

    I'm much more interested in seeing what the bible says than an interpretation of what the bible says.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 833 ✭✭✭snafuk35


    No, they should receive proper education, counseling and support that killing an innocent blameless child is not a viable remedy for any problem or crisis. I have no personal wish or desire to judge any woman placed in a difficult situation, and for me it is not about judging any individual woman that mistakenly thought, or was persuaded, mislead, confused or badly advised during a very vulnerable time, that abortion could be any type of viable solution, it is, and always will be, about the right to life of an innocent child.

    That's all very well but if they still decide they want an abortion what then?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 35 La Petite Fleur


    PDN wrote: »
    I was answering a question about the Bible, not what the RCC teaches.

    The Catholic church's teachings are in accordance with scripture, you or I, or any other Christians can try and attempt to refuse to even acknowlege a certain denomination's very possible and viable interpretation of the finer points in scripture, but I feel this is a rather destructive, pointless, un Christian ego feeding exercise as no two Christian denominations interpetation of scripture will be exactly the same in every regard. Showing a little bit of ecumenity to one another goes a long way, and it does not mean someone having to compromising their own belief/interpretation in any way if they are truly secure in that belief. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Zombrex wrote: »
    What would be the moral argument that the mother cannot do something to her own body if it causes a miscarriage?

    While I accept that the general moral (and legal) rule is that a person has the right to do what they choose to their own bodies, that rule is littered by exceptions particularly where the act done to one's own body causes harm to another. Therefore Im not sure if your confidence in this particular argument is especially well-founded.

    The examples that you have used in this thread mostly involve person A refusing to breach his bodily integrity in order to save the life of person B (ie. person A refusing to give a blood transfusion to person B, who will die without it). You have rightly posed this moral question (to those who argue against abortion): why, morally, is person A entitled to assert their bodily integrity at the expense of the life of person B while a pregnant woman is not so entitled? Its a good question. And I think everyone of an anti-abortion disposition needs to think about it.

    I think the moral distinction between the two centres around comissions and omissions (sometimes called positive/negative obligations/rights). We tend to consider comissions more morally culpable than omissions; therefore we tend to consider assaulting someone to be far more morally objectionable than failing to stop an assault; a doctor who actively causes the death of someone who is critically ill is far more objectionable than a doctor who chooses not to recussitate the same patient; there are thousands of other examples. Criminal law has tended to follow suit. Now, this omission/comission distinction is not without many exceptions itself. I have certainly argued against its blind application in both law, and in morality.

    But as a general rule of morals, it has merit and i think it applies to the present situation, which is why morally most would consider the active comission of an act (such as discontinuing 'life support' to a foetus) to be far more objectionable than an omission (failing to give a blood transfusion to person B).


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    PDN wrote: »
    No, it teaches that infidelity is the only justification for remarriage after divorce.

    No, it teaches that infidelity may be a justification for divorce but says nothing about remarriage after divorce.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    No, it's not an appeal to emotion or religion (not that that comment was directed at you), more an appeal to authority. Even so, the most accurate description of your post is a deceitful quote-mine.

    First of all, you fail to mention that when Professor Bonnar is talking about "direct abortion" he is referring to:

    "It is actually intervening, usually in a normal pregnancy, to get rid of the
    pregnancy, to get rid of the foetus. That is what we would consider the direct procurement of an abortion. In other words, it’s an unwanted baby and, therefore, you intervene to end its life. That has never been a part of the practice of Irish obstetrics and I hope it never will be."

    Furthermore, Professor Bonnar clarified that 1992 comment you quoted in 2000 by saying:

    "In current obstetrical practice rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention is required at a stage in pregnancy when there will be little or no prospect for the survival of the baby, due to extreme immaturity. In these exceptional situations failure to intervene may result in the death of both mother and baby. We consider that there is a fundamental difference between abortion carried out with the intention of taking the life of the baby, for example for social reasons, and the unavoidable death of the baby resulting from essential treatment to protect the life of the mother."


    Also, the evidence given to the Dail Committee on Abortion goes against your implication:


    Dr. Sean Daly - Master of the Coombe Women's Hospital

    "I think that if we go down the road of trying to slice up the
    term ‘abortion’, then we are only going to complicate things
    for ourselves even more. At the end of the day, we do need
    to be able to practise and if this committee, and ultimately if
    the country or however it is constructed, decides that there is
    never an indication for abortion or for the premature ending
    of a pregnancy, then I certainly believe that is going to make
    if difficult to practise in the current environment in which we
    practise."


    Dr. Declan Keane - Master of the National Maternity Hospital

    "HELLP syndrome, which is a variant of pre-eclamptic
    toxaemia, a condition where the mother has severe hypertension
    where the liver is involved … We had a case in 1998,
    as I say, where the woman was severely ill with this
    condition. She was transferred to a neighbouring general
    hospital under the care of the liver specialist and the medical
    opinion that we got from the liver specialist was that this
    woman was going to die if her pregnancy did not end. It was
    a very difficult decision to make. We obviously had to not
    only talk at length with the parents involved but with our
    legal team as well. But there was no other way in which this
    woman would have lived if the pregnancy had continued.
    Continuing his evidence Dr Keane referred to another rare condition:

    I note that the Green Paper and indeed the submissions have
    talked about other possible indications which would include
    severe cardiac disease in pregnancy and Eisenmenger’s
    syndrome has been mentioned. The Coombe Hospital had a
    woman who died from Eisenmenger’s syndrome only last year
    and I suspect that the master of the Coombe may wish to
    make a comment on that later on. Certainly in my experience
    in Oxford we unfortunately again had to terminate two
    pregnancies in women with Eisenmenger’s syndrome because
    the real risks to the woman, if the pregnancy had continued,
    were considerable."


    Dr. Peter McKenna - Master of the Rotunda Hospital

    "I think I can say unequivocally that possibly once a year a
    woman would be seen in this country who, if her pregnancy
    is not terminated within a matter of probably hours or days,
    will die from a complication. The complications that I would
    allude to would be the one which we have personal
    experience of recently and that is, fulminating high blood
    pressure associated with heart failure, associated with a molar
    pregnancy and a live, an ordinary ongoing pregnancy, a most
    unusual condition, one which I will probably never ever see
    again. But the only way in which that woman could be
    stopped from dying of heart failure that day was by
    terminating the pregnancy."


    I think I'll leave it at that. If you want to read all the testimony you can, here:

    The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Consitution - Fifth Progress Report

    Next time, you might want to investigate what the research and the doctors are actually saying instead of pulling soundbites from pamphlets.

    Respose to Eisenmengers Syndrome

    http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/16/4/460

    In conclusion, although pregnancy should be discouraged in women with Eisenmenger's syndrome, it can be successful. In this study, prolonged bed rest, the use of heparin and oxygen therapy presumably positively influenced maternal and infant outcomes.

    Response to HELLP Syndrome

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19916711

    CONCLUSION: Once the diagnosis of HELLP syndrome is confirmed, the management depends on several obstetric and maternal variables like gestational age, severity of laboratory abnormalities and fetal status. As soon as the maternal condition is stabilized and fetal assessment is obtained, prompt delivery of the fetus is indicated. It is not yet established whether expectant management in preterm pregnancies with HELLP syndrome would improve perinatal outcome.

    Response to molar pregnancy

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001907/

    Causes, incidence, and risk factors

    A hydatidiform mole, or molar pregnancy, results from over-production of the tissue that is supposed to develop into the placenta. The placenta normally feeds a fetus during pregnancy. In this condition, the tissues develop into an abnormal growth, called a mass.

    There are two types:

    Partial molar pregnancy

    Complete molar pregnancy

    A partial molar pregnancy means there is an abnormal placenta and some fetal development.

    In a complete molar pregnancy, there is an abnormal placenta but no fetus.

    Both forms are due to problems during fertilization. The exact cause of fertilization problems are unknown. However, a diet low in protein, animal fat, and vitamin A may play a role.


    This one is interesting in that a molar pregnancy contains either no foetus or as the paper says "some foetal development". The language used by Dr. McKenna is confusing as he states there was a molar pregnancy and a live pregnancy. Suggesting a case of twins or a bifurcated uterus, as he is clearly refering to one woman, or he has not presented enough facts in this case.
    What is worth noting is that a molar pregnancy is non-viable. Therefore while the same procedure is used as for an early abortion there is no fetus to speak of.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    I like Spacey. I can think of some politicians/ bankers/ psychics and other criminals for whom abortion would have been a godsend.

    Well, imagine watching the movies he made with someone else actingin his place because that is what you are arguing for.

    Need we explore Steve Jobs upbringing? He was adopted. He wasn't a product of rape but his parents were unmarried and the gand parents objected to the relationship.

    Lets say abortion was allowed in the case of rape before Jobs was born. Is it not conceivable that "rape" may have been presented as a reason to get an abortion? Well, lets not because his parents were good people and gave him up for adoption, but lets imagine instead that abortion on demand, such as it is in the US, became law before Jobs was conceived. It is not unreasonable then to imagine the mothers parents putting pressure on their daughter to have an abortion.
    The only reason I suggest such a scenarion is becasue I know of a woman in the UK what was in the same position as Jobs' parents and was put under pressure by the grandparents and unfortunately did have an abortion.

    Do yo fancy a world where Steve Jobs was never born?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 532 ✭✭✭Keylem


    ...Babies that were aborted that could have made a difference in the world. A baby who would grow up and discover the cure for aids, cancer etc.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement