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

8th Amendment

Options
1…3031333536…65

Comments

  • Options
    #962
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,752 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    Not when the alternative is ending the life of her unborn child. No.
    It is up to her whether to keep the child or send it for adoption but she should not have the option of killing it.
    Taking an abortion pill 2 weeks into the pregnancy is worlds apart from killing a child. There isn't even the beginnings of a brain, yet you support a 14 year prison sentence if she should take the pill.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #963
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    They should mitigate the risks by using contraception. And perhaps if a child is really that much of an abhorrence, abstaining altogether.
    This subtle piece of slut-shaming seems to have slipped past unnoticed: if women don't want to have to deal with the possibility of pregnancy, they shouldn't have sex, the durty slappers. As always, the compassion and empathy positively oozes.

    If you're going to claim that people who don't want abortions should abstain from sex, how do you square that with the belief that a raped child should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?
    Is the life that she and her partner created worthless?
    We're just a skip and a hop away from the declaration that a pregnancy resulting from a rape is a gift from god.


  • Options
    #964
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    If you read the whole post in the context you will see that it was a point made that, compared to death, scars are not as severe.

    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    Mental and physical scars heal. Death does not.

    So what part of "Mental and physical scars heal" means that they don't heal? :confused:

    Please provide evidence that they heal.


  • Options
    #965
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    traprunner wrote: »
    So what part of "Mental and physical scars heal" means that they don't heal? :confused:

    Please provide evidence that they heal.
    You're boring me now.
    No one can miss the point that has been posted by me across several posts at this stage. Therefore I can only draw on conclusion, that you are trying to wind me up.


  • Options
    #966
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,486 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    You're boring me now.
    No one can miss the point that has been posted by me across several posts at this stage. Therefore I can only draw on conclusion, that you are trying to wind me up.

    So your take on it is

    "yes she is only 14 and yes she has been traumatised by this rape but hey, let's force her to carry and give birth to her rapists child because, ya know....she's young, she will get over it"?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #967
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    A bunch of cells a few weeks old is not a child, the depravity is when a few would FORCE a rape victim to carry that bunch of cells until it is fully formed into a child and then FORCE that victim into giving birth.

    It's not a bunch of cells.
    At a few weeks (8-10) it is formed into a recognisable shape (albeit a small one) of a baby.


  • Options
    #968
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    So your take on it is

    "yes she is only 14 and yes she has been traumatised by this rape but hey, let's force her to carry and give birth to her rapists child because, ya know....she's young, she will get over it"?
    My take on it is one life has already been damaged, why are we making it one life damaged and one ended by allowing a termination?


  • Options
    #969
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    You're boring me now.
    No one can miss the point that has been posted by me across several posts at this stage. Therefore I can only draw on conclusion, that you are trying to wind me up.

    I'm honestly not winding you up. If it comes across like that then I do apologise. I would love to see evidence that the scars of childhood rape heal. I do not believe they can but I like to be proved wrong on things. If I am proven wrong (and it wouldn't be a first) I learn from it and alter my belief system.


  • Options
    #970
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    My take on it is one life has already been damaged, why are we making it one life damaged and one ended by allowing a termination?

    One is a life the other is a potential life. Why make one person suffer more on the chance that there is a second life?


  • Options
    #971
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,486 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    My take on it is one life has already been damaged, why are we making it one life damaged and one ended by allowing a termination?

    No

    Your take seems to be that sure her life is already damaged so we may as well force her to carry the child to term and force her to give birth because it can't get any worse for her.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #972
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    traprunner wrote: »
    I'm honestly not winding you up. If it comes across like that then I do apologise. I would love to see evidence that the scars of childhood rape heal. I do not believe they can but I like to be proved wrong on things. If I am proven wrong (and it wouldn't be a first) I learn from it and alter my belief system.

    Right, well taking you at the literal meaning of the post of course physical scars will remain and diminish over time. Mental scars get better over time. Again, probably not to 100% but it will get better like any severe trauma.

    However my argument is that, why let scars (which will exist anyway as a result of the traumatic event - the rape) have anything to do with the decision a woman would take in the circumstances to end the pregnancy.


  • Options
    #973
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,196 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    My take on it is one life has already been damaged, why are we making it one life damaged and one ended by allowing a termination?
    Umm, because the person whose life has been "damaged" is not to be written off like that.

    You're dangerously close to the logic that says the she's damaged goods and therefore not worth investing further effort into.

    She's a person, with feelings and needs - and the first thing she needs is for society not to inflict further trauma on her, and also to recognize the harm that was done to her - not to write it/her off as "well sure we might as well use your body for some other reason then, seeing as the harm is done anyway". The harm can always be made worse by such brutality as you propose. Always.


  • Options
    #974
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    traprunner wrote: »
    One is a life the other is a potential life. Why make one person suffer more on the chance that there is a second life?

    How is it suffering more though? She already has the mental and physical affects of the rape. What difference does not aborting the child make except for punishing the potential child for the actions of a vile rapist?
    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    No

    Your take seems to be that sure her life is already damaged so we may as well force her to carry the child to term and force her to give birth because it can't get any worse for her.

    No? Oh well - seems like you've told me my opinion so I can't have one any more. Thanks for that. One sided debating is so much fun.


  • Options
    #975
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    The life of the fetus is equal to that of the woman, so she can't just go and kill it off. That's equality.

    By that logic if a woman dies in childbirth or as a result of complications in the pregnancy and the child survives, then the child should be prosecuted for manslaughter.


  • Options
    #976
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Umm, because the person whose life has been "damaged" is not to be written off like that.

    You're dangerously close to the logic that says the she's damaged goods and therefore not worth investing further effort into.

    She's a person, with feelings and needs - and the first thing she needs is for society not to inflict further trauma on her, and also to recognize the harm that was done to her - not to write it/her off as "well sure we might as well use your body for some other reason then, seeing as the harm is done anyway". The harm can always be made worse by such brutality as you propose. Always.

    I think you're missing my point on this one. I'm not saying she's damaged goods at all far from it. Recognizing the harm involves support, prison for the rapist, medication for mental and physical scarring and some counselling perhaps.

    However all of that does not preclude from or offer any reason to end a potential child's life.


  • Options
    #977
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    Kev W wrote: »
    By that logic if a woman dies in childbirth or as a result of complications in the pregnancy and the child survives, then the child should be prosecuted for manslaughter.

    No, I fail to see even a remote connection.
    Even disregarding the ridiculousness of what you stated, there would be no mens rea for a fetus to kill its mother/.


  • Options
    #978
    Atlantis50
    Registered Users Posts: 517 ✭✭✭Atlantis50


    anothernight wrote: »
    I think you'll find that the HIQA report was not an investigation on her death, but a review of maternity services.

    From what you've quoted, it is much more specific than a general review of maternity services:
    "In carrying out the investigation, the Authority looked in detail at the safety, quality and standards of services provided by the HSE at University Hospital Galway to patients, including pregnant women, at risk of clinical deterioration and as reflected in, among other things, the care and treatment provided to Savita Halappanavar. This included a review of Savita Halappanavar’s pathway of care as documented in her healthcare records."

    The HIQA report is extremely relevant despite how much you and others would like to sideline it because it doesn't include a reference to the law/8th Amendment.
    anothernight wrote: »
    In fact, the report completely skirts around the issue of medical termination. Not one word of that report is related to Savita's request. Don't you think that's odd?

    Not at all, because, as is clear from the HSE report, early signs of infection were missed meaning the "conservative management" and "wait and see" approach was wrong from almost the very beginning meaning that the termination issue was moot under the HIQA remit.
    anothernight wrote: »
    When it came out, HIQA came under considerable criticism for this, including from medical quarters. Doesn't bother you at all, I'm sure.

    Considerable criticism? A single quote from...*drum roll*... Peter Boylan.

    And he's actually wrong. According to the article, he claimed in a radio interview that the HSE "commissioned the [HIQA] report" and ordered HIQA to leave out anything about requests for a termination and the legal situation.

    HIQA is completely independent of the HSE and cannot order them to do reports and dictate what can or cannot be in the contents:
    The Health Information and Quality Authority is the independent Authority established in May 2007 to drive continuous improvement in Ireland’s health and social care services.

    Reporting directly to the Minister for Health and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, our role is to promote quality and safety in the provision of health and personal social services for the benefit of the health and welfare of the public. Find out more about how we do thisor read our Information leaflet.

    As an independent organisation, the Authority is committed to an open and transparent relationship with its stakeholders. Our independence within the health and social care system is key and central to us being successful in undertaking our functions.

    http://www.hiqa.ie/about-us

    I'm surprised that Peter Boylan would be ignorant of this.
    anothernight wrote: »
    Regardless, it's common for reports on the same issue to give slightly different results. It is clear that there was negligence in her death, otherwise she likely wouldn't have died at all.

    Not according to some on this forum and I see you've come around to the 'no negligence' view since posting this. Why has the HSE admitted liability in a medical negligence lawsuit and why were 9 clinicians who dealt with Savita disciplined?
    anothernight wrote: »
    But why do you choose to ignore the HSE report, which dealt specifically with the investigation into her death? Why listen only to a report that outright states that it is not an investigation but a review of records, and that deals, in fact, with patient safety as a whole?

    I'm not ignoring the HSE report at all. It focuses overwhelmingly on matters not related to the law. And even on the role the legal situation may or may not have played in the treatment of Savita, the report is far from definitive:

    2qs03mw.jpg

    So, it's an "either or" situation.

    What is not an "either or" situation, however, is the series of failures not at all related to the law that led to critical failures in the care of Savita.

    Why do you choose to ignore 100% of the HIQA report and 90% of the HSE report?


  • Options
    #979
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,196 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    How is it suffering more though? She already has the mental and physical affects of the rape. What difference does not aborting the child make except for punishing the potential child for the actions of a vile rapist?
    Are you the bishop of Elphin? :eek:

    In any case, the absence of empathy is transparent. You're certainly Bishop Doran-level material, if you're not actually him.


  • Options
    #980
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,752 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    How is it suffering more though? She already has the mental and physical affects of the rape. What difference does not aborting the child make except for punishing the potential child for the actions of a vile rapist?

    You honestly don't think that some women who've been raped would consider it additional suffering to be forced carry the pregnancy to term?

    Pregnancy/childbirth isn't exactly a doddle you know.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #981
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,196 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    I think you're missing my point on this one. I'm not saying she's damaged goods at all far from it. Recognizing the harm involves support, prison for the rapist, medication for mental and physical scarring and some counselling perhaps.

    However all of that does not preclude from or offer any reason to end a potential child's life.
    Perhaps?

    Would the "counselling" include locking her up for the duration, if she wasn't sensible enough to see things your way?

    Serious question : we were faced with just that scenario with Miss Y.

    How far would you take this logic?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #982
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    How is it suffering more though? She already has the mental and physical affects of the rape. What difference does not aborting the child make except for punishing the potential child for the actions of a rapist?.

    Good god.

    She has mental scars from rape.

    You would choose to ADD MORE TRAUMA to an already traumatized child because yet, she'll learn to deal with it?

    What difference does her being forced to keep the foetus make?

    Well, let's see.

    More trauma.
    Yet another loss of control of her own body,having already had that control ripped away by the rapist.
    Being forced to irreparably change her physical being and deal with the pain of giving birth.

    And the last one - that comment you made about giving her treatment like medication and therapy? Nope, not possible because the medications primarily used in trauma cases damage the unwanted foetus.

    So basically, add more trauma, force her to do more things against her will, force her to face agonizing pain to give birth, leaving her body forever changed, but its okay cause she can chat to a counsellor?

    Your posts are an insult to all women who have been raped, pregnancy or no.


  • Options
    #983
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Are you the bishop of Elphin? :eek:

    In any case, the absence of empathy is transparent. You're certainly Bishop Doran-level material, if you're not actually him.

    Nope, although some would attribute my support of pro life stances to my regular church attendance, I am most certainly not a member of the clergy!
    SW wrote: »
    You honestly don't think that some women who've been raped would consider it additional suffering to be forced carry the pregnancy to term?

    Pregnancy/childbirth isn't exactly a doddle you know.
    I'm aware of that. I am a father so, while I did not carry the children meself I was present at a birth and experienced the various stresses and pains along the way.

    I still stand by my point that a bit of suffering on behalf of the mother is better than denying the unborn child a chance at a life. It's obviously not ideal - but in an ideal world noone would be raped so this wouldnt occur.


  • Options
    #984
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Perhaps?

    Would the "counselling" include locking her up for the duration, if she wasn't sensible enough to see things your way?

    Serious question : we were faced with just that scenario with Miss Y.

    How far would you take this logic?

    With the Miss Y case, she wanted a termination of pregnancy. One was provided in line with our recent abortion laws allowing for terminations.

    I don't see the issue.


  • Options
    #985
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    How is it suffering more though? She already has the mental and physical affects of the rape. What difference does not aborting the child make except for punishing the potential child for the actions of a vile rapist?

    And there we have it!

    "She's already had control of her body taken away from her,where's the harm in keeping her bodily autonomy out of her control so we can just use her as an incubator?"


  • Options
    #986
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    Kev W wrote: »
    And there we have it!

    "She's already had control of her body taken away from her, she's damaged goods now, where's the harm in keeping her bodily autonomy out of her control so we can just use her as an incubator?"
    Please point to exactly where I have said that, as it is not my opinion at all and multiple users are claiming it is.:confused:


  • Options
    #987
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    Please point to exactly where I have said that, as it is not my opinion at all and multiple users are claiming it is.:confused:

    It's not a quote, it's an inference.

    EDIT: Tell you what though, I'll edit it out and let's see if you can respond to the rest of my post.


  • Options
    #988
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    Kev W wrote: »
    It's not a quote, it's an inference.

    EDIT: Tell you what though, I'll edit it out and let's see if you can respond to the rest of my post.
    Kev W wrote: »
    And there we have it!

    "She's already had control of her body taken away from her,where's the harm in keeping her bodily autonomy out of her control so we can just use her as an incubator?"

    It's nothing to do with control. Why is the notion of allowing a woman to end the life of an unborn child - HER own unborn child - not repulsive to you people?


  • Options
    #989
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,196 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    With the Miss Y case, she wanted a termination of pregnancy. One was provided in line with our recent abortion laws allowing for terminations.

    I don't see the issue.
    You didn't answer my question, which wasn't about Miss Y.

    I asked how far you would take your belief that the girl should stay pregnant no matter what she herself wanted. Would you be prepared to see a child victim of rape sedated and force fed for whatever number of weeks or months it took for her fetus to reach viability?

    Or let's say your wife was assaulted by an unknown stranger one day. Would you be prepared to force your wife to continue the rapist's pregnancy and give birth to her rapist's child - and how far would you go to force her to do so?


  • Options
    #990
    No Voter And Proud
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭No Voter And Proud


    volchitsa wrote: »
    You didn't answer my question, which wasn't about Miss Y.

    I asked how far you would take your belief that the girl should stay pregnant no matter what she herself wanted. Would you be prepared to see a child victim of rape sedated and force fed for whatever number of weeks or months it took for her fetus to reach viability?

    Your question was related to Miss Y.

    If there was no alternative then yes. No excuse should allow a parent to kill/terminate/abort their own child. Ending the pregnancy when the child stands a chance outside the womb (like what happened in the miss Y case) would be acceptable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #991
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,795 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    No Voter And Proud wrote: »
    Why is the notion of allowing a woman to end the life of an unborn child - HER own unborn child - not repulsive to you people?

    Why is the notion of forcing a woman - or a child, for that matter - to remain pregnant against her will not repulsive to you?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement