Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

nullzero

SusieBlue wrote: »

Absolutely bizarre that you are attacking me for my responses to certain posts but have no issue with those who made the posts I’m replying to

I've criticised others here Susie, look back through my posts (some very recent ones, one you thanked).

SusieBlue

screamer wrote: »

Or maybe just maybe, we’ve had a period of rushed legislation and start to termination services following the repeal vote, and mistakes are being made???? Who knows if the couple had to travel to the UK would they have made the same decision? Would the more experienced services there have given them better advise?
To just say that this is nothing to do with repeal, is closing down opportunities for learning valuable lessons about what might have gone wrong since the repeal was enacted.

A mistake was made here, that’s for sure.
It’s looking like it was medical negligence and that the lack of conclusiveness wasn’t properly explained to the parents but only time will tell as to what actually happened.

I feel the legislation as it is is sufficient but the good thing is that now that the 8th has been removed from the constitution, we can now amend legislation with no need for a referendum. Again only time will tell as the legislation is put into practice.
I still don’t agree that repeal was to blame and I reject that this would never have happened if the abortion ban was still in place.

Mrs OBumble

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I'm curious why do people make stupid suggestions like this?

If ya think I'm saying to actually DO it ... can't help you there, suggest you avoid forums.

But the point is that plenty of people believe that they ARE carrying a baby not just a clump of cells, at 15 weeks, whether or not the abortion promoters agree.

If one of those people has a spontaneous abortion at 15 weeks, they will, rightly, be very upset if their loss is minimised.

Phil.x

nullzero wrote: »

I don't know if they should find wrong in that option when they are under the impression that their child wouldn't survive.

Like I said I take issue with the more "liberal" aspects of the abortion debate, but I can't honestly find fault with the parents in this case, or any others like it.

Ok, but why not give birth to the baby even if you're told it won't live, surely it can't be any worse than having an abortion.

pinkyeye

Phil.x wrote: »

Ok, but why not give birth to the baby even if you're told it won't live, surely it can't be any worse than having an abortion.

Says someone who has never experienced either and is never likely too either.

SusieBlue

Phil.x wrote: »

Ok, but why not give birth to the baby even if you're told it won't live, surely it can't be any worse than having an abortion.

It’s a very personal thing. Not everyone can go through the 9 months carrying the burden of knowing their baby is going to die at birth.

troyzer

Phil.x wrote: »

nullzero wrote: »

I don't know if they should find wrong in that option when they are under the impression that their child wouldn't survive.

Like I said I take issue with the more "liberal" aspects of the abortion debate, but I can't honestly find fault with the parents in this case, or any others like it.

Ok, but why not give birth to the baby even if you're told it won't live, surely it can't be any worse than having an abortion.

You can if you want. That's your CHOICE.

Some people wouldn't be able to bear it.

Phil.x

Phil.x wrote: »

Ok, but why not give birth to the baby even if you're told it won't live, surely it can't be any worse than having an abortion.

Your talking some amount of ****e really.

Phil.x

SusieBlue wrote: »

I still don’t agree that repeal was to blame and I reject that this would never have happened if the abortion ban was still in place.

But there would of being a better chance of the health baby surviving if abortion on demand wasn't offered,...... due to the couple having to travel to the uk, money, time in thinking, conscious, etc.

Is abortion an easier option than giving birth to a probable baby??

Blueshoe

It's not really a baby though. Didn't come out kicking and screaming

screamer

Phil.x wrote: »

Ok, but why not give birth to the baby even if you're told it won't live, surely it can't be any worse than having an abortion.

Dunno about that, that’s a real “walk a mile in their shoes” issue. For each couple either option is devestating, perhaps one a little less so than the other, depending on themselves. An awful situation with no good outcome either way.

Plumbthedepths

Mrs OBumble wrote:

But the point is that plenty of people believe that they ARE carrying a baby not just a clump of cells, at 15 weeks, whether or not the abortion promoters agree.

What someone believes and what is fact can be at odds. Btw as you can see I ignored your suggestion . Abortion promoters..hmm that's a new one.

amcalester

Phil.x wrote: »

But there would of being a better chance of the health baby surviving if abortion on demand wasn't offered,...... due to the couple having to travel to the uk, money, time in thinking, conscious, etc.

Is abortion an easier option than giving birth to a probable baby??

For some it is, who are you or I to say how much suffering another person should bear.

Phil.x

troyzer wrote: »

You can if you want. That's your CHOICE.

Some people wouldn't be able to bear it.

But that CHOICE was wrong........so now what? Blame others?

amcalester

Phil.x wrote: »

But that CHOICE was wrong........so now what? Blame others?

The choice wasn’t wrong, the information was wrong.

troyzer

Phil.x wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

You can if you want. That's your CHOICE.

Some people wouldn't be able to bear it.

But that CHOICE was wrong........so now what? Blame others?

In your opinion. Isn't it great that we can disagree and not restrict one another based on our own views?

The choice wasn't wrong with the information given. It was a personal choice that you have no right to tell them was wrong.

Phil.x

Phil.x wrote: »

But there would of being a better chance of the health baby surviving if abortion on demand wasn't offered,...... due to the couple having to travel to the uk, money, time in thinking, conscious, etc.

Is abortion an easier option than giving birth to a probable baby??

At least get your facts straight, after twelve weeks abortion is only allowed in the case of FFA and where the health or life of the mother is at risk, that is not abortion on demand.

Phil.x

amcalester wrote: »

The choice wasn’t wrong, the information was wrong.

The choice was wholly wrong, the couple chose the wrong option, there wasn't a gun placed to their heads on the choice of life or death!!

troyzer

DubInMeath wrote: »

Phil.x wrote: »

But there would of being a better chance of the health baby surviving if abortion on demand wasn't offered,...... due to the couple having to travel to the uk, money, time in thinking, conscious, etc.

Is abortion an easier option than giving birth to a probable baby??

At least get your facts straight, after twelve weeks abortion is only allowed in the case of FFA and where the health or life of the mother is at risk, that is not abortion on demand.

Just to add to this.

If the government had originally framed the 8th amendment debate purely in terms of life of the mother and FFA it probably would have passed with nearly 100% of the vote. And I don't think this is an exaggeration. Almost nobody was arguing for the status quo. Even the most hardcore pro lifers were mumbling about an amendment that would still protect the right to life but allow for limited circumstances.

Having a go at the people here (including myself) who are unapologetically pro choice is pointless. Even if we had all forgotten to vote that day, any referendum that would have allowed this tragedy to happen still would have passed with a stupidly large majority.

And again, even if it didn't, it still would have likely happened in England.

SusieBlue

Phil.x wrote: »

The choice was wholly wrong, the couple chose the wrong option, there wasn't a gun placed to their heads on the choice of life or death!!

Just because it was a choice you wouldn’t have made, doesn’t make it the wrong one.
They made the best choice for themselves with the information they had at hand.

Bredabe

screamer wrote: »

We live in a world of information, at your fingertips. Does anyone just accept bad news from a doctor without thinking, I’ll look into it, I’ll check, try to educate myself? Get a second opinion elsewhere? That’s why they’re called second opinions. I’m not blaming the parents, but I’m baffled if they just took the doctors word for it.

Some ppl have been brought up to assume a person in authority is never wrong, there may have been a comprehension or language barrier. These issues I feel sure will come out in the enquiry.

Then there are others who just go along with what other ppl tell them and never look at things for themselves*.

* Something I find really really strange in these times of readily accessible information, but ppl are who they are in this.

Phil.x

Phil.x wrote: »

The choice was wholly wrong, the couple chose the wrong option, there wasn't a gun placed to their heads on the choice of life or death!!

Would go on and **** off with yourself, apart from not actually having your facts right or deliberately posting bs, who are you to say anything about their decision.

Phil.x

troyzer wrote: »

In your opinion. Isn't it great that we can disagree and not restrict one another based on our own views?

The choice wasn't wrong with the information given. It was a personal choice that you have no right to tell them was wrong.

They didn't do their homework, the tests aren't conclusive, its that simple.

screamer

I’m just wondering, why test the foetus after termination.... what difference at that stage? and worse that there was no genetic defect found, why do that when the decision is just final and irreversible. I just don’t understand, it seems additionally cruel on the parents.

SusieBlue

Phil.x wrote: »

They didn't do their homework, the tests aren't conclusive, its that simple.

Unbelievable

troyzer

troyzer wrote: »

Just to add to this.

If the government had originally framed the 8th amendment debate purely in terms of life of the mother and FFA it probably would have passed with nearly 100% of the vote. And I don't think this is an exaggeration. Almost nobody was arguing for the status quo. Even the most hardcore pro lifers were mumbling about an amendment that would still protect the right to life but allow for limited circumstances.

Having a go at the people here (including myself) who are unapologetically pro choice is pointless. Even if we had all forgotten to vote that day, any referendum that would have allowed this tragedy to happen still would have passed with a stupidly large majority.

And again, even if it didn't, it still would have likely happened in England.

They only started mumbling about FFA and cases of rape when they seen the writing on the wall and that they were going to lose, even then the majority seen this for what it was, lies.

I've no doubt that some people who voted no might have voted yes iin the scenario you propose, but no it wouldn't have been a 100% yes vote.

Phil.x

SusieBlue wrote: »

Just because it was a choice you wouldn’t have made, doesn’t make it the wrong one.
They made the best choice for themselves with the information they had at hand.

They wanted the baby.......... they ended up choosing to cut short the baby's life............rather than check for sure that the baby they so badly wanted wouldn't survive.........that IS a bad choice.

troyzer

DubInMeath wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

Just to add to this.

If the government had originally framed the 8th amendment debate purely in terms of life of the mother and FFA it probably would have passed with nearly 100% of the vote. And I don't think this is an exaggeration. Almost nobody was arguing for the status quo. Even the most hardcore pro lifers were mumbling about an amendment that would still protect the right to life but allow for limited circumstances.

Having a go at the people here (including myself) who are unapologetically pro choice is pointless. Even if we had all forgotten to vote that day, any referendum that would have allowed this tragedy to happen still would have passed with a stupidly large majority.

And again, even if it didn't, it still would have likely happened in England.

They only started mumbling about FFA and cases of rape when they seen the writing on the wall and that they were going to lose, even then the majority seen this for what it was, lies.

I've no doubt that some people who voted no might have voted yes iin the scenario you propose, but no it wouldn't have been a 100% yes vote.

I don't think it would be 100%. But I think an 85-90% vote would be possible.

The percentage of people who think women should be forced to carry dead foetuses to term is vanishingly small.

SusieBlue

Phil.x wrote: »

They wanted the baby.......... they ended up choosing to cut short the baby's life............rather than check for sure that the baby they so badly wanted wouldn't survive.........that IS a bad choice.

You clearly don’t understand the concept of hindsight whatsoever.
The made a choice based on the information they had. A bit of compassion and respect for the situation they find themselves in wouldn’t go astay.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

You clearly don’t understand the concept of hindsight whatsoever.
The made a choice based on the information they had. A bit of compassion and respect for the situation they find themselves in wouldn’t go astay.

Compassion isn't something that a lot of pro lifers are known for, so your spitting into the wind here.