Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

OldNotWIse

conorhal wrote: »

I wouldn't bother engaging this poster, it's simply easier to ignore those that ignore the substance or your argument in favor of logic defying circular semantic arguments whose sole point is thread derailment, I don't think anybody is inder any illusion as to what 'abortion' means.

When is an abortion not an abortion? When the pro-choice crowd get uncomfortable about the bad publicity of late term abortions and start pretending that an abortion is something else.

As I posted before:

I'm strongly pro-life but there are levels of abortion that I can live with because it will and always has been a fact that abortions happen in society. This legislation however permits for, however unlikely, the abortion of an near term foetus.
Reilly's insistance that 'a right has no term limits' is one I find the disturbing attitude of a psychotic (try arguing that with him when you are demanding your right to life through expensive cancer drugs).
It's an ideological stance about a real life that completely re-draws the social and cultural values we place on human life as a society. Ultimately I think Lucinda Creighton is right, there is a massive amount 'group think' going on and even Rosin Shorthall is now suggesting that we stop, actually look at what Reilly's 'a right has no term limit' stance actually means, there seems to be quite a few heads in the political sand about the implications of this legislation.

This is bad law based on a hard case, and as everybody knows, hard cases make bad laws, the question that remains however is will this bad law create hard cases?

Will this really allow a near full term abortion? :eek: Haven't premies survived at 22 weeks? Thats altogether very disturbing.

kylith

conorhal wrote: »

This legislation however permits for, however unlikely, the abortion of an near term foetus.

I do not believe that there is a time limit on saving a woman's life, in the case than a serious illness or injury occurs in late pregnancy.

There are also conditions which would render a foetus unable to survive outside the womb which can only be detected after a certain stage of pregnancy (anencephaly after 15 weeks, and hydrocephaly at around 20-24 weeks). Should a woman have to carry a foetus that she knows will die, and have to either pretend to be happy as strangers ask about it or hide herself away, simply because it was impossible to detect the fatal abnormality early in the pregnancy?

lazygal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Will this really allow a near full term abortion? :eek: Haven't premies survived at 22 weeks? Thats altogether very disturbing.

Not that disturbing. I had an abortion of pregnacy at 39 weeks and my child is alive and well. So I had a near full term abortion and no baby died.
Once again, with feeling, aborting a pregnancy is not the same as 'killing a baby'. It is the pregnancy which is terminated, not the foetus.

The 'termination of full term precious tiny baybees' argument is a total red herring.

kylith

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Will this really allow a near full term abortion? :eek: Haven't premies survived at 22 weeks? Thats altogether very disturbing.

Yes, it will allow near full term abortion to save the woman's life. AIUI, every effort will be made to save a viable foetus.

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

Not that disturbing. I had an abortion of pregnacy at 39 weeks and my child is alive and well. So I had a near full term abortion and no baby died.
Once again, with feeling, aborting a pregnancy is not the same as 'killing a baby'. It is the pregnancy which is terminated, not the foetus.

The 'termination of full term precious tiny baybees' argument is a total red herring.

I didnt say anything about "tiny precious babies" but feel free to put words in my mouth.

What do they do with the ones aborted at 30 weeks? 28 weeks? 32 weeks?

OldNotWIse

kylith wrote: »

Yes, it will allow near full term abortion to save the woman's life. AIUI, every effort will be made to save a viable foetus.

oh. well thats big of them I suppose.

kylith

OldNotWIse wrote: »

oh. well thats big of them I suppose.

Would it be better to let them both die

conorhal

kylith wrote: »

I do not believe that there is a time limit on saving a woman's life, in the case than a serious illness or injury occurs in late pregnancy.

There are also conditions which would render a foetus unable to survive outside the womb which can only be detected after a certain stage of pregnancy (anencephaly after 15 weeks, and hydrocephaly at around 20-24 weeks). Should a woman have to carry a foetus that she knows will die, and have to either pretend to be happy as strangers ask about it or hide herself away, simply because it was impossible to detect the fatal abnormality early in the pregnancy?

I do not believe that there is a time limit on saving a woman's life either, cases in which an abortion is necessary to do this are extremely rare. My main issue with the legislation is how questionable abortion is in the case if suicidal ideation, according to both psychiatric and medical professionals an abortion is not appropriate treatment in this case.
According to the current legislation the life of a normal healthy foetus (which is what we are talking about here when debating this legislation) can be destroyed at any time, up to birth.

lazygal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I didnt say anything about "tiny precious babies" but feel free to put words in my mouth.

What do they do with the ones aborted at 30 weeks? 28 weeks? 32 weeks?

I guess they'll do what they do now when nature decides to abort a pregnancy, try to save its life. Nature is, after all, the most indiscriminating abortionist.

Do you think life saving treatment in the form of termination of pregnancy should be subject to time limits? And do you acknowledge the difference between termination of pregnancy and termination of life?

OldNotWIse

kylith wrote: »

Would it be better to let them both die

Course not, whatever needs to be done to save the mother but I just think its so sad that near full term terminations will be carried out, thats all. Didnt realise. Something that was kept very quiet I think.

lazygal

conorhal wrote: »

I do not believe that there is a time limit on saving a woman's life either, cases in which an abortion is necessary to do this are extremely rare. My main issue with the legislation is how questionable abortion is in the case if suicidal ideation, according to both psychiatric and medical professionals an abortion is not appropriate treatment in this case.
According to the current legislation the life of a normal healthy foetus (which is what we are talking about here when debating this legislation) can be destroyed at any time, up to birth.

No, the pregnancy is terminated, not the foetus. When nature decides to abort/terminate a pregnancy all necessary steps are taken to try to save the baby, with sometimes questionable outcomes - such as in the case of Savita Hallapannavar. Why would doctors act differently in the case of medical abortion than they currently do in cases of natural abortion?
If I present at 32 weeks gestation, as I am now, and nature has decided to abort my pregnancy, my consultant and the medical team will do everything possible to save my baby. Why would they not do that when a medical abortion is being carried out, as is the case in, say, a woman presenting with preeclampsia who has to have the baby delivered at 32 weeks to save her life?

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

I guess they'll do what they do now when nature decides to abort a pregnancy, try to save its life. Nature is, after all, the most indiscriminating abortionist.

Do you think life saving treatment in the form of termination of pregnancy should be subject to time limits? And do you acknowledge the difference between termination of pregnancy and termination of life?

I dont know. I guess I just assumed they would be early. How likely is it that a woman would jsut become suicidal at 7 months? then again, remember that awful story abotu a year ago where the woman pregnant with twins walked into the sea and they all died? I dont know!

Termination of pregnancy and termination of life? Well they are both removal of the unborn from the uterus, I guess whether the baby survives or not will determine which category it falls into? Is it a trick question?

OldNotWIse

Whats all this about termination of pregnany v termination of life?

Care to spell it out?

They remove the foetus and then stick it in an incubator?

Cody Pomeray

kylith wrote: »

Yes, it will allow near full term abortion to save the woman's life. AIUI, every effort will be made to save a viable foetus.

If that is the case - which is contested - then that is already the current legal situation.

The Supreme Court decision in X may rule out a cut-off limit. Although this theory has never been tested, the reason why the Government have not specified a cut-off limit is likely because they feel that such a limit would be unconstitutional. I haven't been following the Dáil debates, but I don't believe that there can be a provision which would allow Doctors to save the foetus, especially if it is established that delivering a live child would pose a substantial risk to the life of the mother on the grounds of suicide risk.

conorhal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Whats all this about termination of pregnany v termination of life?

Care to spell it out?

They remove the foetus and then stick it in an incubator?

Well if some posters want to pretend that a c-section (which is not how medical abortions have ever been performed) is an abortion they can, but if an abortion is performed as many late term abortions in the US are, but performing a DX (look it up it's pretty disturbing but involves sucking out the contents of the babys head) then there's not really much point in having an incubator on stand by is there?

lazygal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Whats all this about termination of pregnany v termination of life?

Care to spell it out?

They remove the foetus and then stick it in an incubator?

Well, I don't think I used the phrase 'stick it in an incubator' did I? Not every baby delivered before term needs to incubated. My pregnancy was terminated at 39 weeks gestation and my daughter was fully capable of breathing on her own. Termination of pregnancy is what is carried out every single hour in every single hospital in Ireland, before, at or after full gestation. Women have pregnancies terminated at maybe 32 weeks because they are carrying triplets and the babies are safer being out of the womb than in it. Pregnancies are terminated at maybe 28 weeks because of complications caused by preecplamsia -the only cure for which is delivery of the baby. Those babies are not terminated before delivery, they are delivered and receive medical treatment.

When my baby was delivered by c-section there were three paediatricians, as well as nursing and midwifery staff, present in theatre. As soon as the baby was out, she was taken care of. Why would this not happen in the other cases? My pregnancy was terminated to save my life and that of my baby. Why would the baby not receive medical treatment because of the grounds on which the pregnancy was being terminated?

lazygal

conorhal wrote: »

Well if some posters want to pretend that a c-section (which is not how medical abortions have ever been performed) is an abortion they can, but if an abortion is performed as many late term abortions in the US are, but performing a DX (look it up it's pretty disturbing but involves sucking out the contents of the babys head) then there's not really much point in having an incubator on stand by is there?

I think I've told you before that my pregnancy was aborted/terminated by c section at 39 weeks and my baby's brain wasn't sucked out. I'm sure other women have had the same experience. There was an incubator on standby in theatre which wasn't needed.

Do people really not distinguish between abortion of life and abortion of pregnancy?

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

Well, I don't think I used the phrase 'stick it in an incubator' did I? Not every baby delivered before term needs to incubated. My pregnancy was terminated at 39 weeks gestation and my daughter was fully capable of breathing on her own. Termination of pregnancy is what is carried out every single hour in every single hospital in Ireland, before, at or after full gestation. Women have pregnancies terminated at maybe 32 weeks because they are carrying triplets and the babies are safer being out of the womb than in it. Pregnancies are terminated at maybe 28 weeks because of complications caused by preecplamsia -the only cure for which is delivery of the baby. Those babies are not terminated before delivery, they are delivered and receive medical treatment.

When my baby was delivered by c-section there were three paediatricians, as well as nursing and midwifery staff, present in theatre. As soon as the baby was out, she was taken care of. Why would this not happen in the other cases? My pregnancy was terminated to save my life and that of my baby. Why would the baby not receive medical treatment because of the grounds on which the pregnancy was being terminated?

Im not interested in point scoring, I simply want to know what they do. I assume if its early term they just do the usual break it up and then suction. If later they induce labour and then put it in an incubator (if it needs it). Are there arbitrary time lines? For example, if a 19 week old foetus has to be removed? What would they do?

conorhal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Im not interested in point scoring, I simply want to know what they do. I assume if its early term they just do the usual break it up and then suction. If later they induce labour and then put it in an incubator (if it needs it). Are there arbitrary time lines? For example, if a 19 week old foetus has to be removed? What would they do?

At 19wks, probably a D&C, the C stands for curate or 'cut up'.

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

I think I've told you before that my pregnancy was aborted/terminated by c section at 39 weeks and my baby's brain wasn't sucked out. I'm sure other women have had the same experience. There was an incubator on standby in theatre which wasn't needed.

Do people really not distinguish between abortion of life and abortion of pregnancy?

I think we all know the difference between aborting and disposing of a foetus, and early labour/section. Its probably just our use of terminology that gives that impression. Im not trying to be smart but we would be more likely to say, "x went in for a section at 38 weeks" or "y had to be induced at 35 weeks" etc. I know you are technicaly correct with your terminology but if you said to someone, "I had an abortion at 39 weeks" they would be gobsmacked.

OldNotWIse

conorhal wrote: »

At 19wks, probably a D&C, the C stands for curate or 'cut up'.

I wonder where the line is then. What about one week later? Have people even thought about this. Who gets to decide if its worth giving it a chance to survive?

lazygal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Im not interested in point scoring, I simply want to know what they do. I assume if its early term they just do the usual break it up and then suction. If later they induce labour and then put it in an incubator (if it needs it). Are there arbitrary time lines? For example, if a 19 week old foetus has to be removed? What would they do?

You were focused on late term abortion of pregnancy and I have explained what happens. Doctors have said all efforts are made to save the baby at any gestation. Sometimes that involves allowing nature to take its course in the case of early miscarriage - and the early pregnancy units will deal with those cases. Later on a d&c might be required for a non viable foetus because of the risk of infection, but that's treatment the woman would consent to. She might decide to risk natural miscarriage and wait for a d&c once the foetus has been delivered.

You'd have to consult with your doctor to decide on a course of treatment - the decision to terminate a pregnancy isn't something that's presented as a fait accompli, I asked about my options and came to a decision based on medical advice. Of course in emergency situations, as with any medical treatment, sometimes doctors will provide lifesaving treatment without all options being explored.

A Primal Nut

Technically if the woman says she is suicidal, she will be able to get an abortion at 8 months so in practice the pro-lifers are correct.

lazygal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think we all know the difference between aborting and disposing of a foetus, and early labour/section. Its probably just our use of terminology that gives that impression. Im not trying to be smart but we would be more likely to say, "x went in for a section at 38 weeks" or "y had to be induced at 35 weeks" etc. I know you are technicaly correct with your terminology but if you said to someone, "I had an abortion at 39 weeks" they would be gobsmacked.

Well some seem to think abortion/termination of pregnancy is exactly the same as abortion/termination of life, and either don't want to or can't acknowledge the difference. Its beside the point whether people are 'shocked' by the terminology - in fact I would argue the likes of Youth Defence rely heavily on shock value when using such terms to insinuate abortion is 'killing a baby'. And I think such shock value should be challenged.

conorhal

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I wonder where the line is then. What about one week later? Have people even thought about this. Who gets to decide if its worth giving it a chance to survive?

That, is pretty much the issue that's excercising me. People don't seem to want to think about it. Reilly has stated that 'a right has no time limit' as a theoretical position, fine, but as a practical one, its a patently stupid statement.

OldNotWIse

lazygal wrote: »

Well some seem to think abortion/termination of pregnancy is exactly the same as abortion/termination of life, and either don't want to or can't acknowledge the difference. Its beside the point whether people are 'shocked' by the terminology - in fact I would argue the likes of Youth Defence rely heavily on shock value when using such terms to insinuate abortion is 'killing a baby'. And I think such shock value should be challenged.

I agree. Shock tactics are not needed, certainly not before lunch.

Again though, I dont understand your point about termination of pregnancy v termination of life? (or rather, the need to distinguish) People know the difference between an early labour that is incduced or a c-section, and an abortion that is carried out for the sole purpose of destroying the foetus. The only other category I can think of now is late terms where the foetus is removed and then attempts are made to help it survive.

Who is arguing with you on that?

Cody Pomeray

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Who is arguing with you on that?

It's one of these semantic cul de sacs that pro lifers like to root around.

There's no substantive point to be made by this distinction.

They just tend to use this as a time wasting exercise, or because they don't like the term 'termination' being used instead of abortion, but now I am speculating. The point is that the distinction has no point.

squod

conorhal wrote: »

That, is pretty much the issue that's excercising me. People don't seem to want to think about it. Reilly has stated that 'a right has no time limit' as a theoretical position, fine, but as a practical one, its a patently stupid statement.

Plan was to have a cooling off period. The jump between 20 weeks and the 23 week old child that could be incubated, saved.

Now we have doctors facing another Halappanavar moment. Killing a 10'' baby or (a week or two later) delivering a healthy pre-mature baby.

kylith

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Course not, whatever needs to be done to save the mother but I just think its so sad that near full term terminations will be carried out, thats all. Didnt realise. Something that was kept very quiet I think.

It is sad. It's terribly sad. But unfortunately things that are terribly sad are sometimes necessary.

__________________________________________

I read a letter in the Metro today from a guy who reckons that the provision for abortion will lead to mentally disturbed women thinking that they are suicidal and seeking abortions. Which is an odd position.

Sir Humphrey Appleby

conorhal wrote: »

That, is pretty much the issue that's excercising me. People don't seem to want to think about it. Reilly has stated that 'a right has no time limit' as a theoretical position, fine, but as a practical one, its a patently stupid statement.

Actually it is a practical staement in accordance with the ruling of the Supreme Court Judgement.
Minister Reilly does not have the legal power to limit a constitutional right granted by te Supreme Court, you seem to be determined that he should something that he has no lawful authority to, only the people of Ireland can do that, and in 2002 they overwhelming voted against a referendum which would have overturned the X Case judgement.