Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

robdonn

Huntergonzo wrote: »

In fairness I've already committed the mortal sin of abortion today, I aborted something like 250,000,000 unborn babies only this morning and I may do it again sometime this evening, I NEED TO BE STOPPED!!!

The greatest phallusy out there.

robdonn

robdonn wrote: »

What if there is a 90% chance the mother will die? Or 80%? Or 50/50?

If there is any hope of saving both every option should be exhausted before turning to abortion.

robdonn

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

If there is any hope of saving both every option should be exhausted before turning to abortion.

So even if there is a 90% chance that the woman would die, you would rather force her to remain pregnant for the 10% chance rather than give her the option to make that choice herself?

Huntergonzo

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

I think they are an absolute disgrace but unfortunately the UK's lax laws mean they can travel there for their abortions.

I see, as a matter of interest do you believe women who've had an abortion abroad should be prosecuted upon their return to Ireland?

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

Well it isn't, the fact I'm a catholic has nothing to do with my views on abortion. I think its a barbaric practice that should be outlawed except in very specific circumstances such as the mother will definitely die without the procedure.

The catholic church is totally against abortion (in fact it's totally against contraception as well even though it help prevent the spread of HIV) and you're also totally against abortion. Now this may of course be a coincidence but I doubt very much that it is.

robdonn

robdonn wrote: »

So even if there is a 90% chance that the woman would die, you would rather force her to remain pregnant for the 10% chance rather than give her the option to make that choice herself?

Why should the unborn child not be given every chance at survival?

PopePalpatine

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I see, as a matter of interest do you believe women who've had an abortion abroad should be prosecuted upon their return to Ireland?

Of course not, there's no Gardai willing to drag women to Magdalene concentration camps any more.

Kiwi in IE

Are there particular personality types that succumb to permanently unshakable brainwashing, while others who receive the same level of indoctrination can resist in differing degrees? Just wondering, from a psychological perspective.

rainbow kirby

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

Why should the unborn child not be given every chance at survival?

Why should the woman not be given every chance at survival?

Huntergonzo

robdonn wrote: »

The greatest phallusy out there.

Haha, ok ok well maybe I'm inflating the figures but I'm still preventing millions of unborn babies from being born!

robdonn

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

Why should the unborn child not be given every chance at survival?

Because you are risking the life of the mother? There is a reason why you can't be forced to donate a kidney to someone, even if by some mad fluke of nature you were the only viable donor in the world.

Cabaal

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

It's not the unborn child's fault that they were conceived through rape why should they be punished?

Interesting, but you're ok to punish the women?

Because Lolek Ltd campaigned for every child to have a right to a mother and father perhaps when the baby is born from the women that was raped the rapist should have visitation rights?

After all you have to think about the children, right?

If you're going to put a women through hell for 9 months because she was raped sure you might as well put her through hell for the rest of her life by creating a situation where the rapist gets to interact with her on a weekly basis so he can be in touch with his off spring.

Or would you rather deprive the child of a parent?

Everything you want ignores the health and mental well being of the women, so called "prolifers" don't appear to have any understand of the massive effects of mental health issues and that is deeply concerning.

My opinions on this topic have nothing to do with me being Christian.

Yes, nothing,
Except that your views on the topic have everything to do with your faith and what it preaches,
:rolleyes:

Kiwi in IE

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Of course not, there's no Gardai willing to drag women to Magdalene concentration camps any more.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume 'of course not' in Ariella Dry Vigilante's case.

PopePalpatine

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Of course not, there's no Gardai willing to drag women to Magdalene concentration camps any more.

Of course being against abortion means a person agreed with what happened in the Magdalene laundries :rolleyes:.

robdonn wrote: »

Because you are risking the life of the mother? There is a reason why you can't be forced to donate a kidney to someone, even if by some mad fluke of nature you were the only viable donor in the world.

A kidney is part of your body an unborn child is another person that has protections and rights.

robdonn

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

Of course being against abortion means a person agreed with what happened in the Magdalene laundries :rolleyes:.

Yeah, on this point.

I am an atheist. I am pro-choice. I do not agree with this automatic vilification of pro-life people (Christian or otherwise) that keeps coming up over and over again in these discussions. People should debate the points being made by someone else, not assumptions about what the other person thinks.

I know that I'm probably guilty of doing it myself, we all are sometimes, but some take it a bit far.

Shrap

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

I think they are an absolute disgrace but unfortunately the UK's lax laws mean they can travel there for their abortions.

This is gas. Really. I mean, it's as if you're talking here about a few people....

Do you realise that there must be well over 250,000 Irish women alive today who have had abortions? You can easily multiply that number by 4 (just pulling a conservative figure out of the air there) for the number of people who agreed with their right to do that.....and you are basically calling a QUARTER of the population of Ireland a disgrace (again, I think you need to check your use of this word).

robdonn

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

A kidney is part of your body an unborn child is another person that has protections and rights.

But your kidney alone is not protected by your human rights, it is your bodily integrity that is protected. "Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. It considers the violation of bodily integrity as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal."

Another human being cannot violate your bodily integrity even if it is to save the life of another human being.

robdonn

robdonn wrote: »

Another human being cannot violate your bodily integrity even if it is to save the life of another human being.

Except if that human being happens to be an unborn child of course.

Cabaal

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

I think they are an absolute disgrace but unfortunately the UK's lax laws mean they can travel there for their abortions.

Interesting, so its the UK's fault now?

How about Ireland bans women traveling for abortions? Would you fully support this?

Remember though, if you ban travel for abortions it means Ireland can finally have some back street abortions and some women can die so this issue can finally be properly dealt with instead of exporting our problem for the UK to sort out. So its a double edged sword

The only reason Ireland kicks this issue down the road is because we leave the UK sort out the issue by providing health care to our citizens. an utterly pathetic situation as we continue to fail the women of Ireland and it once again shows are ignorance for mental health issues

Huntergonzo

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

A kidney is part of your body an unborn child is another person that has protections and rights.

But I mean how far do you go with this belief that an unborn baby deserves the same rights as it's mother.

For example do you believe that a woman who's miscarried should be prosecuted for manslaughter?

Obviously I think that would be an appalling thing to do but if you believe that an unborn baby should have full human rights and it dies because it's mother unintentionally kills it then where does that leave you?

robdonn

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

Except if that human being happens to be an unborn child of course.

The unborn child has only one right, the right to life as granted by the 8th Amendment.

PopePalpatine

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

Except if that human being happens to be an unborn child of course.

Why do they get an exception?

Huntergonzo

Huntergonzo wrote: »

But I mean how far do you go with this belief that an unborn baby deserves the same rights as it's mother.

For example do you believe that a woman who's miscarried should be prosecuted for manslaughter?

Obviously I think that would be an appalling thing to do but if you believe that an unborn baby should have full human rights and it dies because it's mother unintentionally kills it then where does that leave you?

Obviously not, a miscarriage is natural. Its like comparing someone dying of natural causes to someone who is shot.

robdonn wrote: »

The unborn child has only one right, the right to life as granted by the 8th Amendment.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Why do they get an exception?

Ahh I was being sarcastic and pointing out the contradiction of people in favour of abortion who are highlighting stuff like "bodily integrity" and you can't violate it while campaigning for the violation of the bodily integrity of the unborn child.

As usual people trying to force abortion into Ireland are clinging on to exceptional and difficult cases to make their point when the reality is they want perfectly healthy mothers to be allowed kill their perfectly healthy babies just because they feel like it.

Pherekydes

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

Obviously not, a miscarriage is natural.

The naturalistic fallacy. Don't bother going to the hospital if you have appendicitis. Just let nature take its course.

Huntergonzo

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

Obviously not, a miscarriage is natural. Its like comparing someone dying of natural causes to someone who is shot.

It depends on the case though doesn't it, I would say that if an unborn baby dies in the womb of natural causes then obviously the death is natural.

I'm asking about cases where for whatever reason the mother's reproductive system terminates an otherwise healthy unborn baby?

For consistency sake, do you not believe that these unfortunate women should be charged with manslaughter?

Virgil°

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

Ahh I was being sarcastic and pointing out the contradiction of people in favour of abortion who are highlighting stuff like "bodily integrity" and you can't violate it while campaigning for the violation of the bodily integrity of the unborn child.

There is no contradiction here. In the same way that another person cannot simply take the use of your kidney against your wishes (even if they would otherwise die), so too an unborn child should not be allowed take use of the mothers body. In your world the unborn is granted more rights than a normal person. Why should this be?

As usual people trying to force abortion into Ireland are clinging on to exceptional and difficult cases to make their point when the reality is they want perfectly healthy mothers to be allowed kill their perfectly healthy babies just because they feel like it.

Do you honestly believe these women flippantly abort their unborn simply "because they feel like it"? Really?

Cabaal

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

Obviously not, a miscarriage is natural. Its like comparing someone dying of natural causes to someone who is shot.

What happens if the women falls down the stairs and that causes a miscarriage,
should they be charged with manslaughter?

It seems only right after all, considering the women has killed "somebody" that is equal to them. If you think they shouldn't be charged with manslaughter then the fetus is clearly not equal to an actual baby.

robdonn

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

Ahh I was being sarcastic and pointing out the contradiction of people in favour of abortion who are highlighting stuff like "bodily integrity" and you can't violate it while campaigning for the violation of the bodily integrity of the unborn child.

Sarcasm? Ok. One problem with your argument though, the unborn child does not have the right of bodily integrity. The unborn child has the right to life, the only right granted to it by Irish law. But even that right is overruled in cases where, as you have agreed is right, the pregnancy will kill the mother. Even though, as I'm sure you're probably just now thinking to reply with, continuing the pregnancy will kill both of them, the decision is made to kill the unborn first.

So when you ask "Why should the unborn child not be given every chance at survival?", it is because when it comes down to it, we prioritise the life of the mother EVERY time.*

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

As usual people trying to force abortion into Ireland are clinging on to exceptional and difficult cases to make their point when the reality is they want perfectly healthy mothers to be allowed kill their perfectly healthy babies just because they feel like it.

And you need to get over this ridiculous idea that abortions don't exist in Ireland. Legal abortions are carried out. Illegal abortions are carried out. Abortions of Irish children by Irish mothers are carried out legally by letting women travel to the UK. What you see as an amazing law that protects the unborn is actually just a law that exports the abortions, puts women's lives and health at undue risk and stigmatises reproductive health to the point that women put themselves in unnecessary risk to hide the apparent shame in having a choice about their own body.

*Except in cases like that of Savita Halappanavar, but going to leave this as a little note instead of properly bringing it up again. We've been down this endless rabbit hole way too many times!

Shrap

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Please tell me you are mistaken? I can't believe that even this country would risk women's health, to the extent that a routine procedure which is used for the treatment and identification of many gynological problems, including endometrial and uterine cancer, is unavailable due to archaic, misogynistic religious ideation?

Sorry Kiwi, only just saw your question. And yes, I am mistaken - D&C is available - I was remembering a case (that I can't find now) and various articles about women being sent home after their late term miscarriages to wait until the third trimester for induction/delivery. This is indeed considered "best practice" here, and I remember reading an obstetrician giving their opinion that this was because they do not have enough staff specialised in D&C. However, I can't find anything to back it up. Here's some quotes from HSE guidelines though, that show it is considered acceptable for women who have late term miscarriages to be walking around like a coffin ship :mad:

The management may involve awaiting spontaneous miscarriage or planned induction.
In cases of second trimester miscarriage where there is evidence of maternal
compromise such as sepsis, fulminating pre-eclampsia or massive placental abruption,
immediate steps towards delivery may be required. However, a more expectant
approach can be discussed if the woman’s condition is stable.
If the woman is not immediately admitted to hospital after the diagnosis of
miscarriage, it is preferable that she is accompanied home and that she is not left
unaccompanied subsequently at home. She should also be given instructions to come
back in to hospital if she has any concerns about her well-being. A follow-up plan
should be agreed and understood.

Expectant management
More than 85% of women with an intrauterine fetal death (IUFD) deliver
spontaneously within three weeks of diagnosis.

http://www.hse.ie/eng/about/Who/clinical/natclinprog/obsandgynaeprogramme/second%20trimester.pdf

Shrap

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

when the reality is they want perfectly healthy mothers to be allowed kill their perfectly healthy babies just because they feel like it.

Ah FFS! This is waay too much stupid to entertain. I'm out.

Neyite

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I'm not so sure, if someone informed the Garda of an intent to travel for the specific purpose of having an actual child killed, I doubt it would be completely ignored.

Up until 1992, you could be prosecuted for travelling for the purposes of an abortion, for providing someone with information on how to travel to obtain a termination. UK magazines such as Just 17, Cosmo, - any publication aimed at teen and young women had black censor ink over any family planning classified where that facility also offered termination. Phone books for the UK were also censored in this way.

In a nutshell, the X case of the nineties, was this: A minor was raped, and parents were bringing her to the UK to terminate which is what the child wanted. The parents enquired with Gardai if a dna / blood sample from the foetal tissue could convict the rapist. Then they were prevented from travelling. The arguments raged on TV for weeks. I *think* that the child was quietly let go to the UK in the end.

The subsequent referendum then allowed clinics and doctors in Ireland to give you information of safe reputable clinics for the first time. And it allowed you to travel for the purposes of obtaining an abortion.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Would my husband and I be charged on our return to Ireland if we had organised an abortion abroad?

If someone had proof you travelled to obtain an abortion and it was pre 1992, possibly. But how would you get that information? Word of mouth? Very few who travelled would admit it. Your doctor could lose their practice by breaking the law to tell you. You couldn't even look up a phone book for a clinic in the UK. You'd have NO idea how much it would cost. You'd basically have to get on a ferry with a wad of money and wing it.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Please tell me you are mistaken? I can't believe that even this country would risk women's health, to the extent that a routine procedure which is used for the treatment and identification of many gynological problems, including endometrial and uterine cancer, is unavailable due to archaic, misogynistic religious ideation?

D&C's are routinely provided in hospitals here. And have always been. My mother had a couple for gynae issues in the late 80's. If, after a length of time miscarrying (I think about 8 days or so) and HCG hormone is not decreasing, along with a positive pregnancy test, it indicates retained tissue, which can cause infection. So in that case, and presumably after being scanned several times to ensure no heartbeat is found, you'd be offered a D&C. However, if a heartbeat is still present, the hospital's hands are tied legally. They would have to wait until the foetus had no heartbeat before they could proceed.

Kole Round Spectator wrote: »

A kidney is part of your body an unborn child is another person that has protections and rights.

I've miscarried 4 babies. In the last three, I have presented myself to the hospital prior to miscarriage to ask to be put on medications that could help me retain the pregnancy - like women in other countries get. I asked for scans and HCG blood tests when I began to miscarry and denied these very basic ante-natal checks, because it leads the hospitals into legal grey areas. The earliest 'emergency' appointment in the emergency service for pregnancy that I was offered was 8 days later - not due to over crowding- because by then, either I'd have lost the baby or not. Hospitals are forced to operate on a Do-Nothing policy now for ALL women to protect themselves and their staff from breaking the law.

This mess of a legislation impacts on the women who DO want to have their babies. Ones like me, ones in far worse ante-natal scenarios, ones facing heartbreak. So next time you waffle on about the rights of the unborn have a think about my 4 much-wanted babies who were denied theirs, ironically, thanks to the very legislation that was supposed to protect them.