Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

volchitsa

cournioni wrote: »

Same laws should apply to the killing of unborn as born.

So, a coroner's inquest into all unexplained deaths then? That'll be a hell of a lot of extra inquests, and if South American countries where this is a thing (well-known women's rights havens too, of course, coincidentally) are anything to go by, a significant number of women in prison for being unable to prove that they miscarried naturally and didn't have an illegal abortion.

You support that approach, yeah? Same laws for the unborn as the born?

cournioni

volchitsa wrote: »

So, a coroner's inquest into all unexplained deaths then? That'll be a hell of a lot of extra inquests, and if South American countries where this is a thing (well-known women's rights havens too, of course, coincidentally) are anything to go by, a significant number of women in prison for being unable to prove that they miscarried naturally and didn't have an illegal abortion.

You support that approach, yeah? Same laws for the unborn as the born?

Yes, it’s no different so why treat it any differently?

markodaly

AulWan wrote: »

You can't say with any degree of certainly that "a healthy baby would have lived" if the law hadn't changed.

In fairness, one could say the exact same thing about Savita Halappanavar and we all know how that was framed, in the press and by certain people.

Timberrrrrrrr

stefanovich wrote: »

So not legally resident? That would make you guilty of fraud.

Maybe i am maybe I'm not maybe it was maybe it wasnt. I guess you will never know seeing as you dont know me or anything about me.

volchitsa

cournioni wrote: »

Yes, it’s no different so why treat it any differently?

And yet it doesn't happen, and no prolifers wanted it to happen in Ireland, none that aren't anonymous posters on here anyway. You think they're wrong there do you?

Given that many miscarriages are of wanted babies, why do you think there's never been a system of investigating these deaths automatically? Parents often have to fight for any sort of in depth investigation into why a miscarriage happened.

It doesn't seem like anyone, prolifer or not, agrees with you that it's "no différent". The reality is that apparently it is different.

But maybe all the rest of the country is out of step, and you're little Johnny who's the only one who's in step, as his proud Mammy said!

cournioni

volchitsa wrote: »

And yet it doesn't happen, and no prolifers wanted it to happen in Ireland, none that aren't anonymous posters on here anyway. You think they're wrong there do you?

Given that many miscarriages are of wanted babies, why do you think there's never been a system of investigating these deaths automatically? Parents often have to fight for any sort of in depth investigation into why a miscarriage happened.

It doesn't seem like anyone, prolifer or not, agrees with you that it's "no différent". The reality is that apparently it is different.

But maybe all the rest of the country is out of step, and you're little Johnny who's the only one who's in step, as his proud Mammy said!

You don’t think someone who intentionally kills their unborn should be treated the same as killing outside of the womb? Why is that?

Listen, I don’t like the terms Pro Life or Pro Choice, I dislike group mentality and thinking, which is one of the reasons why I made the comment which I’ve subsequently been warned for by one of the AH mods. I think people are too caught up in which side they are on rather than focusing on the raw facts of what happens when a baby is aborted. I think that this is a key factor in the Repeal vote and the country went along with this “modern Ireland” thinking (BS in my opinion). That is my opinion and if that isn’t going with the popular thinking then I’m glad I’m not in that group mindset.

Cold hard fact of it is, that abortion is the killing of an unborn baby. This should not be a choice for people to make. A life in the womb should be treated the same as one outside of the womb. The baby should be given the opportunity of life at the very least.

SusieBlue

markodaly wrote: »

In fairness, one could say the exact same thing about Savita Halappanavar and we all know how that was framed, in the press and by certain people.

The professor who chaired the HSE enquiry into her death stated that the 8th amendment played a significant role in the death of Savita Halappanavar, and that had she been offered an abortion when she requested one she would have certainly have lived and probably gone on to have more children.

I’m sure people are sick of me posting about it but seeing as people keep trying to downplay the significance the 8th has in her death, it needs to be repeatedly said.

volchitsa

cournioni wrote: »

You don’t think someone who intentionally kills their unborn should be treated the same as killing outside of the womb? Why is that?

No it's not the same, because during pregnancy the woman's organs are used as though she were a human life support machine. There is no human equivalent outside pregnancy so for that reason alone it's very different.

But in fact that's not the question I asked, which was about unexplained deaths.
If you think that deliberate killing of the fetus is the same as killing a person, then are there never any police investigations into unexplained deaths of fetuses, ie miscarriages?

Because there are two aspects to miscarriages: one is that on principle we don't just write off the death of a child as "just one of those things" - so if you want to treat them the same, then there's a a chance to start.

The other is that we don't know how many of those "miscarriages" could have been avoided if the woman had taken more care, or maybe she even deliberately provoked her miscarriage. That's exactly why unexplained deaths are investigated, to avoid missing out on homicide or murder.

And yet prolifers studiously avoid answering that question. As have you it seems.

cournioni wrote: »

Listen, I don’t like the terms Pro Life or Pro Choice, I dislike group mentality and thinking, which is one of the reasons why I made the comment which I’ve subsequently been warned for by one of the AH mods. I think people are too caught up in which side they are on rather than focusing on the raw facts of what happens when a baby is aborted.

A baby can't be aborted. Etymologically, the word refers to the premature ending of a process, in this case pregnancy, not a person.

As for the raw facts, do you know what happens, or do you just think you know?
What are your sources?

cournioni wrote: »

I think that this is a key factor in the Repeal vote and the country went along with this “modern Ireland” thinking (BS in my opinion). That is my opinion and if that isn’t going with the popular thinking then I’m glad I’m not in that group mindset.

Cold hard fact of it is, that abortion is the killing of an unborn baby. This should not be a choice for people to make. A life in the womb should be treated the same as one outside of the womb. The baby should be given the opportunity of life at the very least.

When you've explained how far exactly you would be prepared to go to make a 12 year old remain pregnant when she doesn't want to be, and why that level of child abuse is acceptable, then you can tell us why IVF embryos aren't worthy of any protection for prolifers, and where the difference between the two lies.

Because I can accept that someone thinks that fertilisation is a magic instant that creates a new person (although I think they are wrong) but I cannot accept that claiming that fertilisation is this magic instant but that we won't apply this protection except to embryos inside women is anything other than hypocrisy.

cournioni

cournioni wrote: »

You don’t think someone who intentionally kills their unborn should be treated the same as killing outside of the womb? Why is that?

Listen, I don’t like the terms Pro Life or Pro Choice, I dislike group mentality and thinking, which is one of the reasons why I made the comment which I’ve subsequently been warned for by one of the AH mods. I think people are too caught up in which side they are on rather than focusing on the raw facts of what happens when a baby is aborted. I think that this is a key factor in the Repeal vote and the country went along with this “modern Ireland” thinking (BS in my opinion). That is my opinion and if that isn’t going with the popular thinking then I’m glad I’m not in that group mindset.

Cold hard fact of it is, that abortion is the killing of an unborn baby. This should not be a choice for people to make. A life in the womb should be treated the same as one outside of the womb. The baby should be given the opportunity of life at the very least.

I'd say that the majority believe that women should have the right to have full medical care and don't have issues with women having this, or don't allow their religious beliefs stand in the way of this.

I have relations in their 60s and 70s who voted for repeal of the 8th who couldn't give a ****e about what modern Ireland thinks, in fact they have issues with a lot of aspects with modern Ireland. They just realised that the 8th was affecting the health care and costing lives of healthy women and it had to go.

SusieBlue

cournioni wrote: »

Yes, it’s no different so why treat it any differently?

The living, breathing born female citizen is far more important than the zygote in her womb.
Her feelings, needs & wants should supersede that of the contents of the uterus.
She matters.
She has a family and friends and people who care about her.
She is the one who will have to carry and be responsible for this child, this baby is developing from the nourishment her body gives.
What gives you, a stranger, the right to insist she does that if she doesn’t want to?
What affords you the authority to insist she gestates a pregnancy against her will?

If it were as black and white as ‘killing babies is wrong’ everyone would be against abortion.
But it’s not quite so simple.
It’s not a baby. It cannot survive independently - it needs her to grow to a point that it can live outside her womb.
This woman, who is carrying this zygote or fetus, is a living person with rights.
She could have a whole range of reasons for wanting a termination, from domestic violence, to poverty, to rape, to FFA, to being underage, to not being able to cope with another child.
All valid reasons that she does NOT have to justify to you or me.

Her body, her womb, her choice for herself.
Just as I’m sure you wouldn’t appreciate strangers interfering in your life or healthcare, give the respect you would expect yourself to others.

Jaster Rogue

cournioni wrote: »

You don’t think someone who intentionally kills their unborn should be treated the same as killing outside of the womb? Why is that?

Listen, I don’t like the terms Pro Life or Pro Choice, I dislike group mentality and thinking, which is one of the reasons why I made the comment which I’ve subsequently been warned for by one of the AH mods. I think people are too caught up in which side they are on rather than focusing on the raw facts of what happens when a baby is aborted. I think that this is a key factor in the Repeal vote and the country went along with this “modern Ireland” thinking (BS in my opinion). That is my opinion and if that isn’t going with the popular thinking then I’m glad I’m not in that group mindset.

Cold hard fact of it is, that abortion is the killing of an unborn baby. This should not be a choice for people to make. A life in the womb should be treated the same as one outside of the womb. The baby should be given the opportunity of life at the very least.

Welcome to the new "woke" Ireland where unborn babies have been demoted to a "clump of cells" which can be discarded and flushed down the toilet (source:HSE website) if unwanted.

You're arguing against people who just can't accept how brutal, disgusting and cruel abortion really is.

SusieBlue

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

Welcome to the new "woke" Ireland where unborn babies have been demoted to a "clump of cells" which can be discarded and flushed down the toilet (source:HSE website) if unwanted.

You're arguing against people who just can't accept how brutal, disgusting and cruel abortion really is.

Wanted pregnancies that miscarry also go down the toilet, so your faux outrage is completely misdirected.
Whether it be a miscarriage or an abortion, a loss before 12 weeks is an extremely heavy period with blood clots that goes down the toilet.

Source: personal experience

Igotadose

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

You're arguing against people who just can't accept how brutal, disgusting and cruel abortion really is.

erm... worse than miscarriages?

volchitsa

SusieBlue wrote: »

Wanted pregnancies that miscarry also go down the toilet, so your faux outrage is completely misdirected.
Whether it be a miscarriage or an abortion, a loss before 12 weeks is an extremely heavy period with blood clots that goes down the toilet.

Source: personal experience

But yeah we should arrest the women who admit to taking a tablet to make this happen, and insist they bury their blood clots in a little casket, while telling women - often rather unsympathetically, in the recent past anyway - to whom this just happens, or who don't admit to taking a tablet, that stuff happens and they should just go home and try again for another baby.

Oh and literally nobody cares except the woman herself if that blood clot goes down the toilet or into the bin in a used sanitary towel. That's differentfor prolifers it seems.

(Source: personal experience too)

Timberrrrrrrr

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

Welcome to the new "woke" Ireland where unborn babies have been demoted to a "clump of cells" which can be discarded and flushed down the toilet (source:HSE website) if unwanted.

You're arguing against people who just can't accept how brutal, disgusting and cruel abortion really is.

What do you suggest a woman does if she miscarries or takes abortion pills?

shesty

Igotadose wrote: »

Nonsensical proof by blatant assertion.
shoutyourabortion.com is, anecdotally, a refutation of what you say.

This is the 1995 study that shows 95% of women do NOT regret their abortions. And 'morally wrong' is arbitrary.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128832#sec013

Morally wrong is arbitrary.Very.But it is essentially the argument used by pro-lifers.I was simply trying to point out that "wrong" is equally as arbitrary in this situation.

Faugheen

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What do you suggest a woman does if she miscarries or takes abortion pills?

Do backflips because she was lucky to be pregnant with one of God’s children.

Larbre34

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

Welcome to the new "woke" Ireland where unborn babies have been demoted to a "clump of cells" which can be discarded and flushed down the toilet (source:HSE website) if unwanted.

You're arguing against people who just can't accept how brutal, disgusting and cruel abortion really is.

Everything in existence is a clump of cells. You're a clump of cells. You're attempt to characterise everyone who must consider termination of pregnancy, for whatever reason and at whatever stage as callous is a failed logic.

Whats brutal, disgusting and cruel would have been the continuation of the previous situation pertaining to victims of rape, pregnant women developing serious illness and those diagnosed with fatal fetal abnormalities (99.9% of whom receive correct diagnosis)

Timberrrrrrrr

Faugheen wrote: »

Do backflips because she was lucky to be pregnant with one of God’s children.

So a woman who miscarries should be grateful she lost it?

ceadaoin.

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

Welcome to the new "woke" Ireland where unborn babies have been demoted to a "clump of cells" which can be discarded and flushed down the toilet (source:HSE website) if unwanted.

You're arguing against people who just can't accept how brutal, disgusting and cruel abortion really is.

I accept it the reality of abortion (except the "cruel" part I guess). Im sure its a very unpleasant experience even for those who choose it. I can't see myself ever deciding to have one, except in the most extreme of circumstances. I don't think I should be able to impose my feelings on others though. If they want to make that choice it's nothing to do with me. There are many valid reasons why a woman might not want to continue her pregnancy.

I mean, it's not hard to not want to control what other people do with their bodies. If you try you'll forever be judgmental and angry because guess what, other people have their own standards and free will to do whatever they want.

Also, even very much wanted pregnancies that are miscarried at an early stage end up in the toilet. That's the reality of miscarriage and always has been, "woke" Ireland or not.

Faugheen

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So a woman who miscarries should be grateful she lost it?

I think you missed the sarcastic tone in my post.

With the lack of compassion and care shown towards women (and newborn babies) it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

Timberrrrrrrr

Faugheen wrote: »

I think you missed the sarcastic tone in my post.

With the lack of compassion and care shown towards women (and newborn babies) it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

Its been a long day and i did indeed miss it

Nobelium

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Define when life occurs?

Well scientifically, human life beings when biology says it does.

The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote .

http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html

Now . When do you claim human life occurs and based on what ?

Timberrrrrrrr

Nobelium wrote: »

Well scientifically, human life beings when biology says it does.




Now . When do you claim human life occurs and based on what ?

So you consider the morning after pill to be an abortion? Why has no one ever been prosecuted for illegal abortion over the last few decades?

Nobelium

uptherebels wrote: »

You seem to have some comprehension issues.

Society views someone who is born but has suffered a brain injury differently to a foetus that that hasn't gained sentience yet. This is evident by societies attitudes towards and the laws currently in place regarding such situations.
I can't simplify this explanation anymore.

Like I have asked, if you believe that the above is wrong please highlight how.

I'll try basic English, and see if you can answer the actual question you were asked :

Who elected you to represent and be the spokesperson for the views of everyone in society ?

Why do you claim to represent "societie's" attitude as if it's some monolithic viewpoint ?

volchitsa

Nobelium wrote: »

Well scientifically, human life beings when biology says it does.

Now . When do you claim human life occurs and based on what ?

What is the point in going back over the same stuff that the prolife side failed to properly argue a year ago? The same questions have been put to you above as were put to opponents of repeal and since they failed to respond then, I'm pretty sure you can't respond any better now.

So is there any point at which you start to think that maybe those are genuine flaws in your arguments, and that you either need to find answers to them or find better arguments?

pjohnson

volchitsa wrote: »

What is the point in going back over the same stuff that the prolife side failed to properly argue a year ago? The same questions have been put to you above as were put to opponents of repeal and since they failed to respond then, I'm pretty sure you can't respond any better now.

So is there any point at which you start to think that maybe those are genuine flaws in your arguments, and that you either need to find answers to them or find better arguments?

"Prolifers" in a nutshell

Nobelium

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So you consider the morning after pill to be an abortion?

Where did I claim that ? Post it.

Please tell me you have something more than Cathy Newman style straw man arguments ?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why has no one ever been prosecuted for illegal abortion over the last few decades?

Because the morning after pill is an ECP, not an abortion pill. Surely you know this ?

(ECPs)—sometimes simply referred to as emergency contraceptives (ECs) or the "morning-after pill"—are medications intended to disrupt or delay ovulation or fertilization, which are necessary for pregnancy. ECPs and abortion pills are not the same. ECPs work by preventing or delaying ovulation and therefore preventing pregnancy, not by abortion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_contraception

Nobelium

volchitsa wrote: »

What is the point in going back over the same stuff that the prolife side failed to properly argue a year ago? The same questions have been put to you above as were put to opponents of repeal and since they failed to respond then, I'm pretty sure you can't respond any better now.

So is there any point at which you start to think that maybe those are genuine flaws in your arguments, and that you either need to find answers to them or find better arguments?

It's nothing to do with opinions, pro life or pro choice.

It's a scientific biological fact when human life begins.

The human life cycle begins at fertilization, when an egg cell inside a woman and a sperm cell from a man fuse to form a one-celled zygote .

http://www.biologyreference.com/La-Ma/Life-Cycle-Human.html

When do you claim human life occurs and based on what ?

SusieBlue

Nobelium wrote: »

I'll try basic English, and see if you can answer the actual question you were asked :

Who elected you to represent and be the spokesperson for the views of everyone in society ?

Why do you claim to represent "societie's" attitude as if it's some monolithic viewpoint ?

Lol at you asking this when you yourself are self appointedly making a choice on behalf of all women when you take their choice away.

Who made you the spokesperson to speak on behalf of all women’s wombs?