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

The new, vicious fight

Options
1…1011131516

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,991 ✭✭✭conorhal


    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    Why do quite a few hospitals refuse to do an anomaly scan at 20 weeks then? This is standard across the developed world.

    A distaste for killing viable children?

    I see that after the abortion statistics for Irish hospitals were released this month the minister for health has refused point blank to indicate if any live birth abortions were performed or what developmental phase they were performed at. Why? Because he doesn't want to tell people that we've more then prepated to murder health viable children.


  • Options
    #363
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    lazygal wrote: »
    Start with the first question and work your way through.

    okay.
    Why shouldnt it be freely available.
    Because there should not be a blanket right to abortion in any circumstances. That would allow the killing of babies all the way up to delivery and would not take into account the rights of the baby to life or the father to his child.


  • Options
    #364
    rainbow kirby
    Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 26,928 Mod ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    conorhal wrote: »
    A distaste for killing viable children?

    20 week foetuses are not viable.


  • Options
    #365
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    20 week foetuses are not viable.

    Viability is determined around 8 weeks, Ireland doesn't do those scans either by the way, they don't do the 12 week dating scan either anymore, or the anomaly scans. No scans through public health.

    You are in the dark all the way through.


  • Options
    #366
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    LorMal wrote: »
    okay.
    Why shouldnt it be freely available.
    Because there should not be a blanket right to abortion in any circumstances. That would allow the killing of babies all the way up to delivery and would not take into account the rights of the baby to life or the father to his child.

    My first pregnancy was ended early and the baby delivered alive. Why do you think stopping the heartbeat always happens when a pregnancy is terminated?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    conorhal wrote: »
    A distaste for killing viable children?

    I see that after the abortion statistics for Irish hospitals were released this month the minister for health has refused point blank to indicate if any live birth abortions were performed or what developmental phase they were performed at. Why? Because he doesn't want to tell people that we've more then prepated to murder health viable children.

    Maybe the women concerned deserve privacy?


  • Options
    #368
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    lazygal wrote: »
    My first pregnancy was ended early and the baby delivered alive. Why do you think stopping the heartbeat always happens when a pregnancy is terminated?

    I don't. However, when abortion is being debated it is generally concerning the issues around killing the baby not about ending the pregnancy.


  • Options
    #369
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    LorMal wrote: »
    I don't. However, when abortion is being debated it is generally concerning the issues around killing the baby not about ending the pregnancy.

    In Ireland the foetus us delivered live where possible if it's at a viable stage of development. What's the issue with that? Miss Y delivered a live baby.


  • Options
    #370
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,991 ✭✭✭conorhal


    lazygal wrote: »
    In Ireland the foetus us delivered live where possible if it's at a viable stage of development. What's the issue with that? Miss Y delivered a live baby.

    What's the health status of miss Y's baby? Is it acceptable to perform a preocedure that results in brain dammage or disability for a child that will have to live with the consequences for the rest of their life?


  • Options
    #371
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,207 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    superelliptic wrote: »
    Yeah maybe but I stand by my original point. The gay marriage ref is only just over and I think the majority of the country would be pissed off in the extreme if they had yet another vicious referendum ahead of them so soon.

    Regarding your fear of being pregnant in Ireland - Do you mean a fear of unplanned pregnancy or just in general?

    It's not about about abortion at all, not in the case of an unplanned pregnancy anyway - that could easily be dealt with by a trip to Liverpool if I really wanted.

    The fear I would have is a wanted pregnancy leading to unexpected health issues, or indeed a birth being badly handled against my wishes as happened recently in Cork - the midwife was accepted to have made the wrong decisions, harming the woman and almost losing the child, but because the woman herself has no choice about how she will give birth because of the 8th amendment, she was found to have no legal recourse.

    That couldn't happen in the UK or most other places, because the woman keeps the freedom to withhold consent that all patients are supposed to have in a modern society. The woman didn't consent to having the birth artificially speeded up, so she was in effect assaulted. But not in Ireland.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    lazygal wrote: »
    In Ireland the foetus us delivered live where possible if it's at a viable stage of development. What's the issue with that? Miss Y delivered a live baby.

    I'm lost. What is your point?


  • Options
    #373
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    lazygal wrote: »
    A question for those who don't want to change the current laws. What would happen in Ireland if women didn't have the right or ability to travel to avail of abortion services? Suppose the UK option disappeared, would women try to abort alone or in illegal clinics?

    We already know this as when abortion was illegal in the UK (between 1803 and 1967) illegal bak-street abortions were common common place here. Not as romantic and principle driven as the Vera Drake film would have us see illegal back street abortionists of the time.

    But, you don't have to back to the 50s and 60s to see what would if women here couldn't access UK abortions so easily. Abortion is pretty much illegal in Brazil but yet there are around a million illegal abortions carried out there each year (that would be the equivalent of roughly 25,000 here). annually around 200,000 women are admitted to hospitals suffering from complications after obtaining an illegal abortion (akin to 5,000 here). Catholic Church influence is a large part of the problem there also. In Chile, the situation is similar:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqhlHYHEZ8E



    All of which is why I would vote to make first trimester abortions legal in Ireland, along also with abortions carried out for therapeutic reasons.


  • Options
    #374
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    LorMal wrote: »
    What if the father and the mother disagree?

    Have a think about this question. It isn't just a hypothetical debate about abstract ideals, it's something that has to actually apply in real life.

    Ideally, both bio parents should have a 50:50 say. Sure.

    In reality, one of them has to have the final word. A decision has to be made, and if there's a disagreement, one of the two has to get the final say - there is no way to compromise on that. Either she has precedence or he does, there's no middle ground. She cannot be "half pregnant" for his sake.

    So, again, in reality, one of the partners has to have a deciding vote. And until we invent some kind of successful external gestator, it has to be the woman, the one actually taking the risk to her life and the toll on her body, the one actually undergoing the physical ordeal, for nearly a year and with livelong consequences. The only practical alternative would mean stepping past a pregnant woman to ask her former sexual partner what he's decided for her, which is grotesque.

    It sucks that the guy can't have a hand in the decision, but the alternative is even worse.


  • Options
    #375
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    jill_valentine wrote: »
    The only practical alternative would mean stepping past a pregnant woman to ask her former sexual partner what he's decided for her, which is grotesque.

    Former? Eh, sometimes it's a boyfriend / husband that objects to a woman aborting their child.

    You are correct though, one partner having the ability to abort a developing baby, particularly when gestation has reached the four to five month stage, is without question grotesque. Which is yet another reason why I am against second and third trimester non therapeutic abortions.


  • Options
    #376
    zeffabelli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,516 ✭✭✭zeffabelli


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    Former? Eh, sometimes it's a boyfriend / husband that objects to a woman aborting their child.

    You are correct though, one partner having the ability to abort a developing baby, particularly when gestation has reached the four to five month stage, is without question grotesque. Which is yet another reason why I am against second and third trimester non therapeutic abortions.

    Ah the ICK factor again.

    You do know the four to five month stage is post anomaly scan?


  • Options
    #377
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    jill_valentine wrote: »
    Have a think about this question. It isn't just a hypothetical debate about abstract ideals, it's something that has to actually apply in real life.

    Ideally, both bio parents should have a 50:50 say. Sure.

    In reality, one of them has to have the final word. A decision has to be made, and if there's a disagreement, one of the two has to get the final say - there is no way to compromise on that. Either she has precedence or he does, there's no middle ground. She cannot be "half pregnant" for his sake.

    So, again, in reality, one of the partners has to have a deciding vote. And until we invent some kind of successful external gestator, it has to be the woman, the one actually taking the risk to her life and the toll on her body, the one actually undergoing the physical ordeal, for nearly a year and with livelong consequences. The only practical alternative would mean stepping past a pregnant woman to ask her former sexual partner what he's decided for her, which is grotesque.

    It sucks that the guy can't have a hand in the decision, but the alternative is even worse.

    I think 'it sucks' does not reflect the gravity of losing your child against your will. You are also assuming the couple have split which may not be the case. You are also suggesting that because both parties cannot agree then the father cannot 'have a hand in the decision'.
    To my mind this is why we must resort to careful and balanced legislation - because there are so many different facets to be taken into account and we cannot allow one agenda supersede all others. It's a very grey area and there are no absolutes.


  • Options
    #378
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    Former? Eh, sometimes it's a boyfriend / husband that objects to a woman aborting their child.

    The only necessary qualification to being the hypothetibabydaddy is that he is this woman's former sexual partner. Hence the phrasing.

    Makes no difference to the point regardless though. It's not better to ignore a pregnant woman to ask her husband what's to be done to her.


  • Options
    #379
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    [QUdOTE=jill_valentine;96189231]The only necessary qualification to being the hypothetibabydaddy is that he is this woman's former sexual partner. Hence the phrasing.

    Makes no difference to the point regardless though. It's not better to ignore a pregnant woman to ask her husband what's to be done to her.[/QUOTE]

    Bah. Nobody suggested that.


  • Options
    #380
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    jill_valentine wrote: »
    It's not better to ignore a pregnant woman to ask her husband what's to be done to her.

    I didn't say it was. I agreed with you that this would be grotesque.

    My point is that if non therapeutic abortions were illegal beyond first trimester, it would be a better situation for all concerned.


  • Options
    #381
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    LorMal wrote: »
    [QUdOTE=jill_valentine;96189231]The only necessary qualification to being the hypothetibabydaddy is that he is this woman's former sexual partner. Hence the phrasing.

    Makes no difference to the point regardless though. It's not better to ignore a pregnant woman to ask her husband what's to be done to her.

    Bah. Nobody suggested that.[/QUOTE]

    In which case trying to mark a distinction between one and the other was pointless.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,207 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    My point is that if non therapeutic abortions were illegal beyond first trimester, it would be a better situation for all concerned.

    That's simply not true. A second or even early third trimester abortion is significantly safer for the woman than going to term and giving birth - and that's for normal pregnancies!

    Being pregnant is inherently risky for a woman. Which is why she is the only person who should be entitled to make the decision to continue the pregnancy, certainly up until the odds for her health even out somewhat.

    iirc that was the basis on which the original time limit of 28 weeks was fixed in the UK. It was later reduced because it was felt that the increased survival of very premature babies should be taken into account, but safety, from the woman's point of view, is still heavily in favour of simply no longer being pregnant right up until 28 weeks or so.


  • Options
    #383
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    How's that for the baby?


  • Options
    #384
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,207 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    LorMal wrote: »
    How's that for the baby?

    If you want to make the point that the fetus dies during an abortion, you go right ahead and do that, but I was replying to your claim that banning second term abortions would be better for "everyone". It wouldn't be better for the woman. That's a simple fact, and one that you may not think matters, but it's still a fact.

    Edit : to the claim (typo)


  • Options
    #385
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    Here you go again. Any chance you can look at the name of the poster before you incorrectly reference a post to someone else?


  • Options
    #386
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,207 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    LorMal wrote: »
    Here you go again. Any chance you can look at the name of the poster before you incorrectly reference a post to someone else?

    Umm, I quoted your post. You hadn't replied to anyone specifically, so I presumed it was in reply to the post above it, ie mine. In other words that you had joined in the discussion about 2nd trimester abortions.

    If that wasn't what you meant to do, it's up to you to be clearer, not to start lashing out when others take you up wrong.

    Edit : I see your problem now - I mistyped, that should have been "the claim" not "your claim". Nothing else changes though, my point is still valid. Unless, as I say, you meant to reply to some other post entirely?


  • Options
    #387
    LorMal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,372 ✭✭✭LorMal


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Umm, I quoted your post. You hadn't replied to anyone specifically, so I presumed it was in reply to the post above it, ie mine.

    If that wasn't what you meant to do, it's up to you to be clearer, not to start lashing out when others take you up wrong.

    Bit dramatic there, no? Nobody's 'lashing out'.
    It was another poster who referred to second trimester abortions, not me. (I do not differentiate).
    Generally, I think you would be much more persuasive in your debating if you did not jump to pour scorn on every opinion that differs from you own. This is a very difficult issue and we all struggle with it (some more than others). I don't think there is any position that's 100% right or 100% wrong - shades of grey abound.


  • Options
    #388
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    volchitsa wrote: »
    That's simply not true. A second or even early third trimester abortion is significantly safer for the woman than going to term and giving birth - and that's for normal pregnancies!

    Being pregnant is inherently risky for a woman. Which is why she is the only person who should be entitled to make the decision to continue the pregnancy, certainly up until the odds for her health even out somewhat.

    I said "all concerned".

    Second and third trimester abortions end the life of 99.99% of the developing babies.


  • Options
    #389
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,207 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    I said "all concerned".

    But you agree that it's not true, it would not be "better" for the pregnant woman, since the mere fact of pregnancy is a risk in itself?

    So it isn't better for "all" concerned. It may be better for the fetus - and even that is debatable, unless you believe that any life however compromised is better than never having existed at all. Personally I don't think that.


  • Options
    #390
    rainbow kirby
    Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 26,928 Mod ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    NachoBusiness wrote: »
    Second and third trimester abortions end the life of 99.99% of the developing babies.

    They are also rare compared to first trimester abortions and generally have solid medical reasons.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #391
    NachoBusiness
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    They are also rare compared to first trimester abortions and generally have solid medical reasons.

    Roughly 15,000 second trimester abortions in the England annually is not "rare" and the reasons for them being carried out are not "generally" for solid medical reasons either.

    Unless you consider risk of suicide to be a 'solid medical reason' but Irish Psychiatrists certainly don't appear to.


Advertisement