Abortion debate thread

doctoremma

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm quite happy to have a discussion about campaigning for an unambiguous law that would give doctors and mothers the right to abortion if there is a serious threat to the life of the mother. That, I think, is a reasonable discussion for us to be having.

I know I'm dragging another issue with this case into the discussion and I'm not entirely sure I know where my thinking is going but never mind...

I suspect most would agree that an unambiguous law as you describe is necessary.

However, I'm still not sure that codifying this law would have saved Savita because, of course, there is uncertainty about how much danger a miscarriage presents to the pregnant woman. It would be very easy (and indeed, mostly correct) to assert that miscarriage doesn't carry a high inherent risk and that conservative management is the first appropriate course of action. I think these arguments will be put forward in the investigation - sudden onset and unpredictability of infection and so forth.

I wonder if the abortion law that would have been most valuable in this case is the right to an abortion of a non-viable fetus? It seems to be the only one that cannot be rejected by medical evidence.

This is just me pondering. I'm not blind to the ramifications of such an abortion law and I'm not particularly proposing that Ireland immediately institute it.

Obliq

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

This part of your post bothered me and it took me a while to figure out why this was.

I was expecting a response along the lines of: "Yes, although we stand on opposite sides of the fence when it comes to the wider issue of abortion on demand, we should indeed have a discussion about what can be done to stop suffering and death in such cases". In this regards, I'm quite happy to have an discussion about campaigning for an unambiguous law that would give doctors and mothers the right to abortion if their is a serious threat to the life of the mother.

Instead, what I got was an argument about how I should, for the sake of Ireland, no less, admit to what you see as Constitutional errors dating back 30 odd years ago.

Well, you see, I take it as a given that we should have a discussion about what can be done to "stop suffering and death in such cases". I also take it as a given that we stand on opposite sides of the fence. And that is all well and good that you have a different opinion to me.

The reason you got an argument about a 30 yr. old constitutional amendment (only 10 yrs older than the amount of time we have waited for governments to act upon OUR VOTE on the x-case) is that the x-case itself was the test case for that "constitutional error". The different opinion that you seem to hold about the right to life of the unborn being equal to the right to life of the mother, is enshrined in the constitution, with NO ROOM for my opinion. It was less of an error, and more of a bias - one that remains to have a massive effect on every pregnant woman in this country.

You see, I am quite content that some people do not agree with other people's beliefs about the unborn, but I am not content that only one set of people can live their lives with their beliefs held within the Irish constitution. I'm afraid this dreadful case (and I can see you are as upset as I am - that's why this discussion is taking place) comes down to this. The implications of that amendment are the most divisive in Ireland, all the time. Savita's death is one of those very real implications for pregnant women in Ireland. Hence the anger at the wording of the 8th amendment. I am entitled to my opinion on that and I won't be quiet about it any more.

As an aside - I have become much more active in my views since earlier this year when I found the pro-life campaign by the Catholic Church and other organisations to be so triggering and so invasive. I still have a lot to learn from them about how to ram this issue down people's throats, but I'll step it up, because they have impacted on me personally. And my friends. And I do this for my niece, my sisters, all Irish women.

Fanny Cradock

Obliq wrote: »

And my friends. And I do this for my niece, my sisters, all Irish women.

I see. But seems as you are again talking at me, rather than having a discussion with me, I think I'll bow out. But perhaps we will meet in the middle some time.

PDN

Obliq wrote: »

I presume your first sentence is sarcasm? The point I made about pro-lifers not much mentioning the agony that Savita went through for 3 days in order to wait for the fetus to die naturally, is fair enough in my book.

It is not fair in the slightest.

The agony this woman went through was not mentioned because this thread is about abortion, not about the correct use of anesthesia. That would be a very valid discussion - but I'm not quite sure why it would be in this forum.

There is no justification for a patient to be left in agony in a miscarriage - but generally abortion is not classified as a form of pain relief.

Obliq

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I see. But seems as you are again talking at me, rather than having a discussion with me, I think I'll bow out. But perhaps we will meet in the middle some time.

I'm sorry, yes I was talking at you. I am so passionate about this that I have just told you my views without inviting yours. To be honest, I am hurting to the core about having grown up here and still be living here with my views so unrepresented. I have to give the computer over to my youngest now, but hope to come back and actually discuss this with you again. At least you have not said I am wrong to hold my opinion, and I have not said to you either. That's a start I hope. Regards, Obliq

Tim Robbins

I don't understand why Christians are so against abortion, gay marriage.

I think it's a lifestyle thing rather than a theological thing. They feel the more secular a society gets the more their lifestyle will be called into question.
Abortion is loosely associated with casual sex. I think Christians feel that if they are abstaining - everyone else should.

Even if you could objectively say the foetus is a human, millions of humans already needlessly die and get very little in comparison to aborted foetus's.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't understand why Christians are so against abortion, gay marriage.

I think it's a lifestyle thing rather than a theological thing. They feel the more secular a society gets the more their lifestyle will be called into question.

Abortion is loosely associated with casual sex. I think Christians feel that if they are abstaining - everyone else should.

Tim, that is nonsense.

Christians are generally opposed to abortion because they think killing babies is morally wrong.

If you want to have plenty of casual sex then that's your choice - I have no interest in what you get up to in your bedroom so long as you confine it to consenting adults.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Even if you could objectively say the foetus is a human, millions of humans already needlessly die and get very little in comparison to aborted foetus's.

The foetus is human. It's a human in the stage of being a foetus. Just like you are a human in the stage of being a 20 something year old (?) adult male. The question is whether or not the human foetus is a person and therefore has certain rights.

Get with the argument, Tim.

Benny_Cake

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't understand why Christians are so against abortion, gay marriage.

I think it's a lifestyle thing rather than a theological thing. They feel the more secular a society gets the more their lifestyle will be called into question.
Abortion is loosely associated with casual sex. I think Christians feel that if they are abstaining - everyone else should.

Even if you could objectively say the foetus is a human, millions of humans already needlessly die and get very little in comparison to aborted foetus's.

So many generalisations...

These are two completely unrelated issues, and it's pretty pretty lazy to pigeonhole Christians by assuming that because they feel one way about gay marriage, it follows that you know how they are going to feel about abortion.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The foetus is human. It's a human in the stage of being a foetus. Just like you are a human in the stage of being a 20 something year old (?) adult male. The question is whether or not the human foetus is a person and therefore has certain rights.

Get with the argument, Tim.

Well I kind of agree with you that the foetus is a life / human. However:
* I don't believe the matter is so simple that I can force my views on other people
* If I wanted to persuade people I wouldn't go about it the way the pro - life campaigns do.

They go really crazy about it but they don't seem to even notice that a million people die from diarrhea every year.

In addition, there isn't much support for exactly when life begins in scripture - is there? There was a time where the Catholic Church said 3 months after conception. They got this from some Greek philosophy. Then they changed their opinions and the reformed Churches took the same opinion.

People who are very pro abortion tend to be very unsympathetic to the religious lifestyle. So maybe the corollary is that religious people feel under attack.

Tim Robbins

Benny_Cake wrote: »

So many generalisations...

These are two completely unrelated issues, and it's pretty pretty lazy to pigeonhole Christians by assuming that because they feel one way about gay marriage, it follows that you know how they are going to feel about abortion.

It's the way they react to certain social issues. They think everyone should be like them. It is if because another way of looking at the world / life make them feel very uncomfortable and raise questions they don't want to deal with.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well I kind of agree with you that the foetus is a life / human. However:
* I don't believe the matter is so simple that I can force my views on other people

How noble of you!

There have been times in history when groups of people didn't believe Jews or blacks were fully human.

I would like to think that, if I had been alive then, I would have been intolerant enough to contest that view.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's the way they react to certain social issues. They think everyone should be like them. It is if because another way of looking at the world / life make them feel very uncomfortable and raise questions they don't want to deal with.

Your lazy generalisations are getting very tiresome.

So why do you think the Evangelical Alliance in Ireland spoke out in favour of the Civil Partnership Bill? Was it because they thought everyone should be like them?

georgieporgy

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well I kind of agree with you that the foetus is a life / human.

In addition, there isn't much support for exactly when life begins in scripture - is there? There was a time where the Catholic Church said 3 months after conception. They got this from some Greek philosophy. Then they changed their opinions and the reformed Churches took the same opinion.

two quick referrences for you

Webster's Bible Translation
And it came to pass, that when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb: and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

I will never forget you, my people. Does a mother forget her baby, or a woman the child within her womb? Yet even if these forget, I will never forget my own (Isaiah 49, 14-16)

But I guess you're looking for a biblical statement that spells out the exact moment a new life begins? I think in the good old days people never figured that people would get more and more stupid as time went on. How could they have foreseen the Dark Ages for example let alone our present day level of intelligence.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

How noble of you!

There have been times in history when groups of people didn't believe Jews or blacks were fully human.

I would like to think that, if I had been alive then, I would have been intolerant enough to contest that view.

The difference is because it is not so subjective with blacks and Jews (Christians both of these people incidentally). It is very subjective with a foetus. You can put an embryo in a freezer and they are still alive. It is difficult to argue that such a life form is the same as a black or Jewish child or adult.

You use so many analogies you can look at an argument for what it really is. Why don't you ever try to do that instead of accusing me of making generalisations.

Christians tend to have their baptism and christenings after birth. But if they really believe there is no difference in person hood between a baby and foetus they should be baptising / christening at an early stage.

Reformed Churches are always going on about scripture for the basis of Christianity. As I said, where does scripture exactly when person hood begins?

Tim Robbins

georgieporgy wrote: »

two quick referrences for you

Webster's Bible Translation
And it came to pass, that when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb: and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.

I will never forget you, my people. Does a mother forget her baby, or a woman the child within her womb? Yet even if these forget, I will never forget my own (Isaiah 49, 14-16)

Thanks for the effort but it doesn't the question. If Christians were sticking to scripture they would admit it is difficult to say exactly when person hood begins because scripture isn't clear. You could interpret that as meaning when the woman can feel the baby moving. Or you could interpret that as a sign that a woman is going to have a baby but it is still not clear when it begins. Without trying to sound facetious, there could be a chance that God leaves some leeway here. But the pro life Christians act as if there absolutely zero complexity, subjectivity in this matter.

I think in the good old days people never figured that people would get more and more stupid as time went on. How could they have foreseen the Dark Ages for example let alone our present day level of intelligence.

I don't understand that.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Your lazy generalisations are getting very tiresome.

So why do you think the Evangelical Alliance in Ireland spoke out in favour of the Civil Partnership Bill? Was it because they thought everyone should be like them?

Why don't the evangelical alliance speak out in favour of marriage equality?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The difference is because it is not so subjective with blacks and Jews (Christians both of these people incidentally). It is very subjective with a foetus. You can put an embryo in a freezer and they are still alive. It is difficult to argue that such a life form is the same as a black or Jewish child or adult.

So the definition of personhood is that you can't put a person in a freezer? We're all in trouble if cryogenics advances much further, aren't we?

You use so many analogies you can look at an argument for what it really is. Why don't you ever try to do that instead of accusing me of making generalisations.

Because you haven't actually advanced any worthwhile argument. All you have done is made lazy and untrue generalisations about Christians and religious people.

Christians tend to have their baptism and christenings after birth. But if they really believe there is no difference in person hood between a baby and foetus they should be baptising / christening at an early stage.

I'm going to assume you're simply trolling now.

Reformed Churches are always going on about scripture for the basis of Christianity. As I said, where does scripture exactly when person hood begins?

You really haven't made the slightest effort to understand what Christians believe - have you?

Reformed Churches base their beliefs on Scripture where Scripture speaks to that issue. Scripture speaks about people both in the womb and after birth. The precise moment in the womb (conception, a week later, or three months later) is not specified.

Christians (including Reformed Christians) also base many beliefs on non-Scriptural sources. For example, my belief that black people are human is not based on a specific verse of Scripture.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Why don't the evangelical alliance speak out in favour of marriage equality?

What has that to do with abortion?

I referred to the Civil Partnership Bill to demonstrate the falsity of your untrue and malicious generalisation that Christians' views on social issues are formed out of a desire to make everyone else be like them.

If you want to discuss 'marriage equality' then I believe there is a megathread where you can troll.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In addition, there isn't much support for exactly when life begins in scripture - is there?

And you would know this from you extensive study of Scripture, yes?

Most people realise that human life begins when an human egg is fertilised by a human sperm to create something genetically distinct from either mother or father.

doctoremma

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Most people realise that human life begins when an human egg is fertilised by a human sperm to create something genetically distinct from either mother or father.

Point of order: the creation of both eggs and sperm leads to genotypes that are distinct from either mother or father (and not just because they are haploid, rather than diploid).

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

So the definition of personhood is that you can't put a person in a freezer? We're all in trouble if cryogenics advances much further, aren't we?

There is no objective definition that doesn't have problems.

I'm going to assume you're simply trolling now.

Well if they are so sure about person hood why don't they consistently act that way.

Scripture speaks about people both in the womb and after birth. The precise moment in the womb (conception, a week later, or three months later) is not specified.

Super so we agree. It follows then that Christians who are so sure about the precise moment have no basis for being so sure - not even from scripture.

Christians (including Reformed Christians) also base many beliefs on non-Scriptural sources. For example, my belief that black people are human is not based on a specific verse of Scripture.

So are you saying if you weren't a Christian you wouldn't believe that? If not what's your point?

My point was the the Christian pro -lifers act like they get their certitude about when life begins from their religious believes. Catholics can say that religious belief comes a decree from the Vatican. What about reformed Churches?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

What has that to do with abortion?

I referred to the Civil Partnership Bill to demonstrate the falsity of your untrue and malicious generalisation that Christians' views on social issues are formed out of a desire to make everyone else be like them.

I reject that. Because they are still happy for gay people to be discriminated against.

If you want to discuss 'marriage equality' then I believe there is a megathread where you can troll.

There you go - anyone who challenges PDN is a troll. Good one. You behave the same as the pro lifers. Finding it very difficult to have your opinions questioned.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And you would know this from you extensive study of Scripture, yes?

No. I am prepared to let you people educate me on that matter.

Most people realise that human life begins when an human egg is fertilised by a human sperm to create something genetically distinct from either mother or father.

I don't think they do realise that the entire DNA fingerprint is there at the point of conception. I certainly didn't until I started reading Richard Dawkins and would have done a lot of science-y stuff prior to that.

Fanny Cradock

doctoremma wrote: »

Point of order: the creation of both eggs and sperm leads to genotypes that are distinct from either mother or father (and not just because they are haploid, rather than diploid).

Fair enough. If I understand it correctly there is some variation in the alleles.

martinnew

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/we-wont-let-women-die-says-professor-3294626.html

obstetricians believed they had the freedom to intervene to save a woman's life, even if it meant the loss of the foetus.

doctoremma

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Fair enough. If I understand it correctly there is some variation in the alleles.

Crossing over during meiosis.

To take a single event:
Mum has two chromosome 3s, with the same order of genes (1, 2, 3...) on both, with each gene existing as two slightly different alleles (a and b). So, one Chr3 is composed of genes 1a, 2a, 3a... and the second Chr3 is composed of 1b, 2b, 3b...

Mum's eggs contain one copy of Chr3. However, this single Chr3 isn't simply a copy of one of Mum's. During egg production, the Chr3 pair is brought together and they swap material (crossing over). The egg may therefore contain a Chr3 composed of genes 1a, 2b, 3b.... This Chr3 genotype is different to Mum's.

This crossing over happens to all chromosomes during egg and sperm production, yielding eggs and sperm that are all genetically distinct from the creature whence they came.

I work in human genetics and I think genes are bl00dy important. But I don't think arguing that the beginning of life is defined by the creation of a distinct genotype is a good one.

doctoremma

martinnew wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/we-wont-let-women-die-says-professor-3294626.html

obstetricians believed they had the freedom to intervene to save a woman's life, even if it meant the loss of the foetus.

Do you think that 'belief' should be codified in law?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I reject that. Because they are still happy for gay people to be discriminated against.

Actually they aren't, but then truthfulness isn't that important to you today, is it?

If I argue that meat-eaters should have every legal right that vegetarians possess - but that they cannot accurately be described as 'vegetarians' - then only a buffon would accuse me of discrimination.

There you go - anyone who challenges PDN is a troll. Good one. You behave the same as the pro lifers. Finding it very difficult to have your opinions questioned.

Not at all - I have pointed out that you made an untrue generalisation about Christians (most such generalisations are untrue, be they directed at Christians, Muslims or atheists). Instead of admitting that you were wrong, you are indulging in muppetry that has nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

Now - are you really going to insist that Christians who advocate full tolerance and equal rights for same-sex couples, but who don't believe 'marriage' to be an appropriate description for a same-sex relationship, are thereby trying to force everybody else to be like them?

Think carefully about your answer. Being a troll is one thing. Being an idiot is something else.

martinnew

doctoremma wrote: »

Do you think that 'belief' should be codified in law?

Yes we need clear guidelines, We all have the mothers best interests at heart here. What Law would we need to have that is not already there? Mothers life is at risk, we act. But I will leave it to the experts to give there opinion on this, esp Doctors.

But there is a big difference in delivering a Child that will result in its death to save the mothers life and Abortion which is intentionally targeting the Child when there is no risk to the mother.

So as long as the law or Guidelines are centred around helping the mother and not around targeting the child then it should be ok.

But lets face it.. No doctor today sits around and lets a Mother die when they know their is a Risk to her life.. That would be grave negligence as you kill 2 lives. It simply does not happen, unless the doctor is negligent and does not see the gravity of the situation. Abortive procedures in the republic are carried out every year to save mothers life. That's the reality. Do we need clearer guidelines on this, maybe, will have to see.

I know its a sad week for the poor Woman and the grief her husband has to face.

But the reality is the morality rate of women in Ireland is 6.6 per 1,000 while in India its 20.97 births/1,000 population
(India figures 2011 and Irish Figures 2010)

We are one of the safest places in the world to have a child with our current legislation.