Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

kaymin

kaymin wrote: »

I was replying to another poster who accused me of lying. But now that you said it, an absence of a heartbeat dictates when someone is dead so the corollary is that a heartbeat indicates when someone is alive.

I don't think that's strictly true (there is no legal definition of death, and I'm pretty sure the medical one is more complex), but let's not labour the point, and lets assume that a foetus is a living organism.

It is only a living organism in the same sense as a plant is a living organism; it can not be said to have a consciousness, which I think is pretty crucial.

What I was getting at was, it's so pointless to hang anything on whether the foetus has a functional circulatory system, or even a rudimentary heart. People on both sides of the debate often dwell on this, and it's just so pointless. We might as well be agonising over the stage at which the elbows are developed.

shesty wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/hospital-said-one-test-result-was-enough-before-termination-says-couple-1.3897113?mode=amp

I think this is the nub of the issue.Which brings us back to the long conversation about processes and the lack of standardised care in the Health system.

Wow, that adds a fair bit of seriousness to the topic.

Pretty damning, if the situation described is accurate (I presume it is)

shesty

shesty wrote: »

Abortion is morally wrong.So wrong it will take a woman years to recover - if she ever does.
But then again, having seen the flicker of a heartbeat on a screen at six weeks, and then to be told it would all come to nothing....I don't know if I could cope with that.I don't know how I would react. Emotive language it may be, but to know that every movement I felt, every kick and wriggle would all come to nothing?And worse, I would have to go through labour and birth and go home with nothing....? God, it would break me. Almost as much as aborting would. I was lucky, I have three healthy babies.However it could be any of us that finds ourselves in this situation.I don't expect any pro-lifer to change their minds, but until they have stood in the shoes of - at the very least - a pregnant woman or couple, I can't help but feel that their opinion is not fully informed.

Plenty of women have no issues when they have an abortion including a few posters on this site and thread. Your claim doesn't stand up, unless of course your claiming to know how all women who have had an abortion actually feel.

stefanovich

Not a member of any prolife group so I don't think I can be held accountable.

The government has proven it cannot even provide basic healthcare services in this country.

We legalise abortion and now doctors are pushing it after inconclusive test results. No surprising seeing as the HSE is fundamentally incompetent.

stefanovich

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It is only a living organism in the same sense as a plant is a living organism; it can not be said to have a consciousness, which I think is pretty crucial.

How do you know when consciousness starts or even what it is? Is it electrical? Spiritual? How can you be so sure of a lack of something if you don't even know what it is?

stefanovich

DubInMeath wrote: »

Plenty of women have no issues when they have an abortion including a few posters on this site and thread. Your claim doesn't stand up, unless of course your claiming to know how all women who have had an abortion actually feel.

I've seen someone drown kittens in a kitchen sink and they didn't break a sweat.

cournioni

Faugheen wrote: »

Why is a woman having a termination (or indeed not having one) any of your business though?

That's the question I asked you.

I’m Irish and I pay tax which funds these “procedures” (aka killings). Of course it’s my business. I disagree with killings wholeheartedly, as should any sane being.

I find your attitude towards life sickening to be honest.

stefanovich

cournioni wrote: »

I’m Irish and I pay tax which funds these “procedures” (aka killings). Of course it’s my business. I disagree with killings wholeheartedly, as should any sane being.

I find your attitude towards life sickening to be honest.

What do they do with the bodies after death? Are they buried or just disposed of as medical waste?

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

How do you know when consciousness starts or even what it is? Is it electrical? Spiritual? How can you be so sure of a lack of something if you don't even know what it is?

What do you mean I don't know what it is? I think a very fine definition is that consciousness is a situation of wakefulness, sentience and self-consciousness.

It's usually possible to observe whether an animal has consciousness, and consciousness probably occurs along a spectrum.

Horses, I believe, have greater self-consciousness than dogs have; birds have almost none. Try putting all three animals in front of a mirror. A horse will immediately recognize himself, and look back at you to see whether you are an idiot. A dog might be initially surprised and then accept that it is only his reflection. A bird will go berserk. A foetus (hypothetically, wombs have no mirrors), would perceive absolutely nothing).

I defy anyone, though, to assert with any confidence that foetuses are conscious beings by the tri-fold definition above.

stefanovich

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What do you mean I don't know what it is? I think a very fine definition is that consciousness is a situation of wakefulness, sentience and self-consciousness.

It's usually possible to observe whether an animal has consciousness, and consciousness probably occurs along a spectrum (horses, I believe, have greater self-consciousness than dogs have; birds have almost none). I am sure there is exhaustive scientific and psychological research on this available online.

I defy anyone, though, to assert with any confidence that foetuses are conscious beings by the above definition.

So a baby that is delivered at 8 months is not sentient? Being in the womb is a barrier to consciousness? Which one is it?

Timberrrrrrrr

stefanovich wrote: »

What do they do with the bodies after death? Are they buried or just disposed of as medical waste?

You said earlier

If you made abortion illegal and provided optional support services for crisis pregnancies where people got help and support and a safe place then the rest would take care of itself.

Up until recently it was illegal in Ireland, it didnt stop women having abortions though. How do you think it would work now?

stefanovich

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You said earlier



Up until recently it was illegal in Ireland, it didnt stop women having abortions though. How do you think it would work now?

Make it a criminal offense for an Irish woman to have an abortion anywhere.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

So a baby that is delivered at 8 months is not sentient? Being in the womb is a barrier to consciousness? Which one is it?

It's all three elements of the definition, taken together.

A foetus in the womb is almost certainly sentient, that is merely a question of electricity. Probably also wakeful. But self-conscious? There is no reason in the world to presume that.

Caledonia

It does seem - perhaps in light of referendum and delivering change - the doctor involved jumped the gun. They weren’t examined by a second doctor even though papers signed. That’s fine technically but as mother says she raised the syndrome after her own research maybe the second doctor would have said ‘let’s pause here’; this baby is much wanted; they are informed, there is a chance. It would have balanced bias.

I think the second paragraph here about not doing anything differently is v strange.

From Sunday Times:
The couple say they were asked to attend a consultation at the hospital on April 4 at which they were told “some normal cells and abnormal cells” had been found in samples taken from the foetus, and claim they were not properly advised at that point that the baby had been healthy.

Haughey said the couple had been advised at the final meeting in April that the hospital would not have done anything differently, as it believed the chances of the baby being born healthy were still negligible.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

I've seen someone drown kittens in a kitchen sink and they didn't break a sweat.

And what's that got to do with abortion?

nullzero

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

What do you mean I don't know what it is? I think a very fine definition is that consciousness is a situation of wakefulness, sentience and self-consciousness.

It's usually possible to observe whether an animal has consciousness, and consciousness probably occurs along a spectrum.

Horses, I believe, have greater self-consciousness than dogs have; birds have almost none. Try putting all three animals in front of a mirror. A horse will look at himself, and look at you to see whether you are an idiot. A dog might be initially surprised and then accept that it is only his reflection. A bird will go berserk. A foetus (hypothetically, wombs have no mirrors), would perceive absolutely nothing).

I defy anyone, though, to assert with any confidence that foetuses are conscious beings by the tri-fold definition above.

I think where this argument falls down is the potential for consciousness.
You cited plants as being analogous to a foetus earlier, a plant will never at any point of its potential life cycle develop consciousness, where as a fetous is typically going to reach that potential.

I'm not really interested in jumping in on the discussion properly but I think there is an important distinction between flora and fauna which you're not picking up on.

stefanovich

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It's all three elements of the definition, taken together.

A foetus in the womb is almost certainly sentient, that is merely a question of electricity. Probably also wakeful. But self-conscious? There is no reason in the world to presume that.

That could describe a newly born baby.

Timberrrrrrrr

stefanovich wrote: »

Make it a criminal offense for an Irish woman to have an abortion anywhere.

Wow!

How would you police that?

Nobelium

Caledonia wrote: »

Wondering how sick the doctors involved feel to have terminated a healthy baby. Like there are always outcomes to treatments but actually taking a life - ...not allowed to conscientiously object so they could be against abortion themselves.

Anyone that does that must get some kind of sick kick out of it.

volchitsa

cournioni wrote: »

I’m Irish and I pay tax which funds these “procedures” (aka killings). Of course it’s my business. I disagree with killings wholeheartedly, as should any sane being.

1,429,981 insane people in Ireland then?

cournioni wrote: »

I find your attitude towards life sickening to be honest.

Personally I find your post sickening, but so what really?

Are pacifists entitled to object to their taxes being used to pay an army?

OTOH, if abortion really is killing, what difference did it make for 30 years that women could perfectly legally, and openly, take themselves off to the UK to commit the exact same act? If it were not tax payer funded, how would that make it any less of your business? (If it's actually "killing" I mean).

Oh and why are moderators allowed to post like this, I thought people were being sanctioned for this sort of nonsense now? I've reported it. I'll be interested to see what happens.

stefanovich

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Wow!

How would you police that?

Implementation detail.

Faugheen

cournioni wrote: »

I’m Irish and I pay tax which funds these “procedures” (aka killings). Of course it’s my business. I disagree with killings wholeheartedly, as should any sane being.

I find your attitude towards life sickening to be honest.

I find your desire to control what a woman does with her own body and using the ‘taxpayer’ line as if it gives you that entitlement sickening if I’m honest.

Some women don’t want to continue with a pregnancy. They were given the right to end it in this country through a democratically held referendum which passed overwhelmingly.

cournioni

amcalester wrote: »

You’ve been judging women all through this thread.

Some women have a lot to answer for, particularly when they use the line “women want control over their own bodies”, or “woman’s body, woman’s choice”. Sickening attitude.

Nobelium

Faugheen wrote: »

No, why is a woman deciding what to do with her own body any of our business?

No one cares what someone else does to their own body, but in this case there is two bodies involved not one, and the child might also be a female.

nullzero

nullzero wrote: »

I think where this argument falls down is the potential for consciousness.
You cited plants as being analogous to a foetus earlier, a plant will never at any point of its potential life cycle develop consciousness, where as a fetous is typically going to reach that potential.

I'm not really interested in jumping in on the discussion properly but I think there is an important distinction between flora and fauna which you're not picking up on.

I don't think that carries much weight. Mere potential is a weak threshold. If one of us is a woman and the other a man, there is a potential baby between us (I'm not flirting, you are). Potentialiaty is just about what could arise in the future. It can't be something to get overly precious about.

stefanovich wrote: »

That could describe a newly born baby.

https://www.livescience.com/41398-baby-awareness.html

Timberrrrrrrr

stefanovich wrote: »

Implementation detail.

Elaborate please.

stefanovich

Faugheen wrote: »

I find your desire to control what a woman does with her own body and using the ‘taxpayer’ line as if it gives you that entitlement sickening if I’m honest.

Some women don’t want to continue with a pregnancy. They were given the right to end it in this country through a democratically held referendum which passed overwhelmingly.

And the divorce referendum will be passed also. Pregnancy and marriage is being assaulted. The fundamental unit on which society is built.

Timberrrrrrrr

cournioni wrote: »

Some women have a lot to answer for, particularly when they use the line “women want control over their own bodies”, or “woman’s body, woman’s choice”. Sickening attitude.

Yeah, i mean imagine a woman wanting control over what happens to her body, shocking isnt it? :rolleyes:

Nobelium

uptherebels wrote: »

Again I have already explained this to you. If you believe I am wrong please highlight where these instances are considered the same.

Again you haven't . . you claimed several times now to know an entire societies view . . who exactly elected you to be spokesperson for an entire society ?

cournioni

Faugheen wrote: »

I find your desire to control what a woman does with her own body and using the ‘taxpayer’ line as if it gives you that entitlement sickening if I’m honest.

Some women don’t want to continue with a pregnancy. They were given the right to end it in this country through a democratically held referendum which passed overwhelmingly.

No, I want to stop a senseless killing of a life, same way I would want a senseless killing of a baby in its cot. If I’m helping to fund that, then it absolutely is my business to voice my distaste for it (to say the least).

A woman can do what she wants with her own body, not the body of the baby in it.

stefanovich

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I don't think that carries much weight. Mere potential is a weak threshold. If one of us is a woman and the other a man, there is a potential baby between us (I'm not flirting, you are). Potentialiaty is just about what could arise in the future. It can't be something to get overly precious about.


https://www.livescience.com/41398-baby-awareness.html

You disproved your own point with your link. If the baby is self conscious at birth surely it is self conscious just before.