Abortion

partyatmygaff

harperlee wrote: »

It was a joke, get a life.

It sounded more like "Men control women and are hypocrites who'd allow abortions if it had a direct effect on them". Maybe i'm missing something but I didn't see that as a joke.

Your ranting like a mad person in your posts. Go out and vent your anger like a normal person.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eREiQhBDIk

:P

nozzferrahhtoo

Not "done here" then. Nozz's 1st Law strikes again :-)

I should have got some kind of patent or claim out on it.

At least this time I did have the foresight to put money on it. I am now 5 euro up on another poster

robp

There is a lot of misinformation on the subject of maternal health and abortion. The pro-choice lobby is prone to making the unfounded claim that legislating for abortion somehow improves maternal health.

There is a new study in the prestigious journal PLoS ONE based on 50 years of data from Chile that tests this.
They write “no direct evidence testing this causal assumption in developing countries currently exists. Furthermore, the lowest mortality ratios observed in European countries such as Ireland, Malta and Poland], where abortion is severely restricted by law, suggest that this assumption may be untrue”.

Incredibly, they prove the reduction in the maternal mortality is not related to the legal status of abortion “After abortion was prohibited in Chile in 1989, the maternal mortality ratio (MMR)... did not appear to be altered by the change in abortion law”.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0036613

nozzferrahhtoo

It is not an argument I have heard often from the pro choice side. Most of the arguments I have heard are centered around the rights of the mother to make the choice, and the rights, if any, possessed by the fetus.

In fact I am not even sure what the above post is saying. Why would abortion improve maternal health and mortality? Even if it did I would expect changes in the law on abortion in Ireland to have little impact on this because abortion is already legal here in Ireland in cases where the mothers life is at risk. So making elective abortion illegal is unlikely to impact the statistics on maternal mortality at all?

SleepDoc

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I view gastrulation as being the most important step in the formation of a new individual and it as that point they definitively attain an individual right to life.

When do you think a new individual is formed?

After development of the central nervous system.

partyatmygaff

SleepDoc wrote: »

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I view gastrulation as being the most important step in the formation of a new individual and it as that point they definitively attain an individual right to life.

When do you think a new individual is formed?

After development of the central nervous system.

Considering the CNS begins developing at the neurula stage (Which intersects with the gastrula stage) and isn't even fully developed until quite some time after birth, I don't quite see why you'd disagree with what I'm saying.

SleepDoc

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Considering the CNS begins developing at the neurula stage (Which intersects with the gastrula stage) and isn't even fully developed until quite some time after birth, I don't quite see why you'd disagree with what I'm saying.

Until the neural tube differentiates into a brain and spinal cord, this clump of cells cannot be classified as a human life.

To say otherwise is deluded.

partyatmygaff

SleepDoc wrote: »

Until the neural tube differentiates into a brain and spinal cord

Which it does... fairly rapidly. In fact, from the moment the neural tube is formed development of the brain and spinal cord begins. If you want to wait until it's fully developed you'll be waiting for quite some time (After birth, that is).

this clump of cells cannot be classified as a human life.

To say otherwise is deluded.

It most certainly is human life. Just because you think it's deluded doesn't mean that it is. It just means that you're ignoring simple biology.

Duckjob

LilyCricket wrote: »

Should it be available here?

Regardless of circumstance?

No, be de hokey. We should continue being a grand little Catholic country where young women just happen to take themselves off for very short holidays to the UK at extremely short notice don't you know.

SleepDoc

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Which it does... fairly rapidly. In fact, from the moment the neural tube is formed development of the brain and spinal cord begins. If you want to wait until it's fully developed you'll be waiting for quite some time (After birth, that is).

Yes, and you'll be waiting until the mid twenties for frontal lobes to fully develop.

It takes several weeks for a brain and spinal cord to develop. Until that point, this is a collection of cells, with the potential to develop into a human life.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It most certainly is human life. Just because you think it's deluded doesn't mean that it is. It just means that you're ignoring simple biology.

It is no more human life than a teratoma or ectopic pregnancy.

partyatmygaff

SleepDoc wrote: »

Yes, and you'll be waiting until the mid twenties for frontal lobes to fully develop.

It takes several weeks for a brain and spinal cord to develop. Until that point, this is a collection of cells, with the potential to develop into a human life.

What is "human life"? Define it because your idea seems to differ wildly from the biological definition of a "human individual organism".

It is no more human life than a teratoma or ectopic pregnancy.

A teratoma in a body is not a disparate human individual. A gastrulated embryo in a body however is a disparate human individual.

SleepDoc

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What is "human life"? Define it because your idea seems to differ wildly from the biological definition of a "human individual organism".

Maybe you could explain what a "human individual organism" is, as opposed to say, a human being?

Just because a clump of cells has the potential to develop into a human being does not mean that it has the right to so develop.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

A teratoma in a body is not a disparate human individual. A gastrulated embryo in a body however is a disparate human individual.

You're right, a teratoma is not a human being. It does usually however, have exactly the same cells as a normally developing fetus.

An ectopic pregnancy can occassionally, albeit rarely develop into a viable pregnancy. Such pregnancies are routinely removed sugically. Shouldn't you be agitating that we force women to go to the UK for this procedure?

partyatmygaff

You're right, a teratoma is not a human being. It does usually however, have exactly the same cells as a normally developing fetus.

"Exactly the same cells as a normally developing foetus"?

News to me. I've never personally heard of a teratoma having precisely the same nature of cells as a developing foetus. Just because two things have defined germ layers does not make them the same. That said, if this is a new personal discovery you've made, i'd recommend you publish it somewhere.

An ectopic pregnancy can occassionally, albeit rarely develop into a viable pregnancy. Such pregnancies are routinely removed sugically. Shouldn't you be agitating that we force women to go to the UK for this procedure?

I don't know how many times people have arrived in this thread out of nowhere with this point. I've replied to it umpteen times so far.

In bold:
No objection to therapeutic abortions.

Perhaps I should add it to my signature

SleepDoc

partyatmygaff wrote: »

"Exactly the same cells as a normally developing foetus"?

News to me. I've never personally heard of a teratoma having precisely the same nature of cells as a developing foetus. Just because two things have defined germ layers does not make them the same. That said, if this is a new personal discovery you've made, i'd recommend you publish it somewhere.

My mistake. However, it usually contains all 3 germ layers just like a gastrula.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I don't know how many times people have arrived in this thread out of nowhere with this point. I've replied to it umpteen times so far.

In bold:
No objection to therapeutic abortions.

Perhaps I should add it to my signature

Good, so no objections to abortions for psychological reasons then?

partyatmygaff

SleepDoc wrote: »

My mistake. However, it usually contains all 3 germ layers just like a gastrula.

Which doesn't make them the same thing.

Good, so no objections to abortions for psychological reasons then?

Psychological as in genuine suicidal ideation --> It depends on the case but usually yes as balanced out, there's no point in preserving the life of the child at the cost of the mother's life.

Psychological as in "Oh no, I won't be able to go clubbing anymore and having a kid doesn't suit me" --> Absolutely not.

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

there's no point in preserving the life of the child at the cost of the mother's life.

Out of curiosity, why not?

It seems arbitrary to pick one life over the other.

partyatmygaff

Seachmall wrote: »

Out of curiosity, why not?

It seems arbitrary to pick one life over the other.

In for example an ectopic pregnancy, on other of likelihood the mother has a far greater chance of surviving than the child. If you continue the pregnancy, the child is highly unlikely to survive and the mother may either suffer great harm or die as well. If you kill the child, the mother will survive.

Seeing as the mother could die and the child has little to no chance of survival, the most sensible thing to do is to kill the child. It's not nice but it's the best option available.

SleepDoc

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Which doesn't make them the same thing.

Psychological as in genuine suicidal ideation --> It depends on the case but usually yes as balanced out, there's no point in preserving the life of the child at the cost of the mother's life.

Psychological as in "Oh no, I won't be able to go clubbing anymore and having a kid doesn't suit me" --> Absolutely not.

The majority of women who have abortions fall well between these extremes.

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Seeing as the mother could die and the child has little to no chance of survival, the most sensible thing to do is to kill the child. It's not nice but it's the best option available.

Ah, I thought you meant a "one or the other" type situation.

Fair enough, that makes sense.

SleepDoc

Seachmall wrote: »

Out of curiosity, why not?

It seems arbitrary to pick one life over the other.

Because the mother is a human being.

The fetus is a potential life.

partyatmygaff

SleepDoc wrote: »

The majority of women who have abortions fall well between these extremes.

For psychiatric issues, it's difficult to be clear cut about things but generally speaking anything below genuine suicidal ideation or "that level" of psychological issues would be unacceptable as far as i'm concerned.

Ellis Dee

SleepDoc wrote: »

Because the mother is a human being.

The fetus (sic) is a potential life.

A handful of acorns is a potential fleet of men-of-war.:):):)

partyatmygaff

SleepDoc wrote: »

Because the mother is a human being.

The fetus is a potential life.

I'm writing a song.

I've got the basic structure of the song down, i've got the bassline, the rhythm and most of the melodies but still need to add some harmonies and lyrics to complete it. The basic feel of the song is there but it's still far from finished. At that stage, would you consider it a "song in progress" or a "potential song"?

SleepDoc

partyatmygaff wrote: »

For psychiatric issues, it's difficult to be clear cut about things but generally speaking anything below genuine suicidal ideation or "that level" of psychological issues would be unacceptable as far as i'm concerned.

Such a subjective interpretation of a womans state of mind is inherently unworkable.

A woman should have the freedom to terminate a pregnancy.

It is after all, her body.

SleepDoc

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I'm writing a song.

I've got the basic structure of the song down, i've got the bassline, the rhythm and most of the melodies but still need to add some harmonies and lyrics to complete it. The basic feel of the song is there but it's still far from finished. At that stage, would you consider it a "song in progress" or a "potential song"?

I'd say it needs work.

B0jangles

partyatmygaff wrote: »

For psychiatric issues, it's difficult to be clear cut about things but generally speaking anything below genuine suicidal ideation or "that level" of psychological issues would be unacceptable as far as i'm concerned.

Good thing you won't ever become pregnant and have to deal with this situation as anything other than a thought experiment.

I find it appalling that you fell perfectly entitled to tell someone like myself who actually could experience an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy that unless I meet up to your stringent requirements for mental or physical illness, I should be forced to carry the pregnancy forward for 9 months; undergo the inevitable massive physical changes to my own body that will result because you believe you have a right to make a decision on a major life-changing situation that will never personally affect you in the same way that it can affect any woman of child-bearing years.

ChubbyRunner

One of the things that has really shocked me about Ireland is that abortion is illegal. I never knew that before I came to live here. I think its shocking women have to travel to another country? Like wtf?? I read some of the stories women posted of their abortions and my heart goes out to each and every one of you, its so brave to be open with some of the comments here. I hope there is at least a good support network for women who decide to do this even if they do have to travel. Its scary and I hope it changes.

SleepDoc

Ellis Dee wrote: »

A handful of acorns is a potential fleet of men-of-war.:):):)

You added sic to my spelling of fetus yet add smiley faces to a post?

partyatmygaff

SleepDoc wrote: »

Such a subjective interpretation of a womans state of mind is inherently unworkable.

Why? Surely a psychiatrist would be more than capable of making a diagnosis?

A woman should have the freedom to terminate a pregnancy.

It is after all, her body.

Remove the euphemism. Then remember that it's not just her body and it's not just her life. Life shouldn't always be "me, me, me" after all.

SleepDoc wrote: »

I'd say it needs work.

Answer the question or don't reply at all.

B0jangles wrote: »

Good thing you won't ever become pregnant and have to deal with this situation as anything other than a thought experiment.

I find it appalling that you fell perfectly entitled to tell someone like myself who actually could experience an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy that unless I meet up to your stringent requirements for mental or physical illness, I should be forced to carry the pregnancy forward for 9 months; undergo the inevitable massive physical changes to my own body that will result because you believe you have a right to make a decision on a major life-changing situation that will never personally affect you in the same way that it can affect any woman of child-bearing years.

You don't have to be a woman to disagree with a parent unnecessarily electing to kill their own children. Abortion isn't an issue that is only for women to discuss. It's an issue that concerns society and humanity as a whole.

As for "never personally affect you"... to keep it brief, let me tell you that that's completely false. In any case, something need not necessarily affect me personally for me to care about it.

SleepDoc

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Why? Surely a psychiatrist would be more than capable of making a diagnosis?

Psychiatrists differ.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Remove the euphemism. Then remember that it's not just her body and it's not just her life. Life shouldn't always be "me, me, me" after all.

It is her body. It provides an environment where a clump of cells may develop into a viable human being. There is not, and should not be any obligation on her to do so.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Answer the question or don't reply at all.

Come up with a decent analogy and I'll try not to be pithy.