Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

AulWan wrote: »

In practical terms, for rape cases, it simply wouldn't work, for the reasons you just gave and why a period of access to abortion "on demand" was sought.

Yes, I’ve thought about it and I can’t think of a way other than quizzing the woman. Which is horrific.

It’s a question that tends to be dodged because there’s no easy answer.

SusieBlue

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Again I should point out I voted yes, but think there is very dubious morality here. Mentioning 'wants', no way 'wants' are more important that a 'gestated fetus'. That's genuinely appalling.

Totally get abortion for people who are raped or going to lose the child within minutes of birth or who could die themselves without the abortion. But having an abortion is a big deal, they should not be had lightly.

Having a child is one of life's greatest gifts, if not its greatest. The 'contents' of a womb are very, very important.

Yes, the ‘wants’ of a living breathing citizen should be prioritized over a 12 week gestated pregnancy. Especially if that citizen is the one bearing the pregnancy.
She’s the one who will have the burden of responsiblity for the subsequent child, so whose ‘wants’ are more important than hers?
Are you saying society should have more of a say on the matter than her?
I don’t see whose wants, needs and feelings are more relevant than the woman actually carrying the baby.

No woman takes the matter abortion lightly. The fact that you are implying women will be getting them for lols or without proper thought is extremely offensive.
She has to carry the child, she has to raise the child, if she says she can’t do that you or I are in no position to insist otherwise.

Also, there are no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ abortions. You are a hypocrite if you are ok with it in some instances but not others. It’s either killing or it’s not.
Every woman has a reason that is personal to her and we should respect that.
We are not her judge and jury.

As for your last paragraph, I actually completely agree with you.
I fully believe every child should be loved and cherished like the gift that they are.
However, I’m not so self important as assume to speak for everyone when I say that, whereas that’s exactly what you’re doing with your blanket statements.

For some people, having a baby would be the worst possible thing that could ever happen them, for a variety of reasons. They would not agree with us that it’s life greatest gift.
You or I are in no position to force them to have a child they do not want, when we aren't the ones who have to live with the consequences.

The reason I brought up the contents of a womb was because the 8th amendment said that even if a woman was just 4 weeks pregnant, the zygote in her belly has an equal right to life as her.
The law didn’t care if she had cancer or a disability, if she was in a violent relationship, living in poverty or simply couldn’t cope with another baby.
The law said that zygote was equal.
That should never be the case unless the woman is agreeable and willing.
She is more important unless she chooses otherwise.
She is the priority unless she chooses to put her pregnancy first (which most women do anyway).

nozzferrahhtoo

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Yes, I’ve thought about it and I can’t think of a way other than quizzing the woman. Which is horrific.

It’s a question that tends to be dodged because there’s no easy answer.

I have thought about it too and the only "workable" solution is the most horrific of all. Even worse than "quizzing" the woman as you rightly put it.

One solution is to give them a "I was raped" box on the application. That would not work, because simply all women would tick it.

One solution is that they SECURE a rape conviction..... which time wise is simply not congruent with abortion. The conviction would come long after the period where we are comfortable with abortion. in fact we would be more in the area of taking a hit out on a toddler the way some cases go!

So the only WORKABLE solution is to allow abortion in a situation where they have actively reported a rape and intend to pursue a prosecution.

And as if false rape claims were not bad enough in our culture....... I do not think I have to explain why incentivising them might not be the..... ?best?.... way to go????

Sunny Disposition

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Thank you firstly for simply ignoring my first post reply to you. It is always nice to make an effort and not have it returned. I guess.

To the point though, I am not sure what your issue is with the word "wants" but perhaps I can frame it in completely different language just to pre-empt the possibility of a battle of pedantic language debate between you and any interlocutor.

I believe morality is in the business of ensuring the well being of sentient agents. If you think I am wrong in this please let me know how and why!

"Wants" is merely a simple word to express that a sentient agent is in play. It might be a crass or base way to express that, but it is certainly sufficient. I would not fault its use.

The concerns of a sentient agent ARE more important than non-sentient agents which have no concerns. No concerns AT ALL. Of any type.

In that sense yes "wants" are more important that a gestating fetus of 12-16 weeks which is the age well over 95% of abortions by choice actually happen.

Because if we are going to have a moral and ethical debate, then our primary concern has to be with agents for whom we should have moral and ethical concerns. The mother is such an agent. The fetus is no more such an agent than a rock or a table leg.

If you can think of ANY reason why we should have moral and ethical concern for a non sentient construct..... you would literally change my view of abortion..... and actually my view of quite a number of other subjects too.... literally over night. And I would change those views without hesitation, reservation, embarrassment or hostility. In fact I would likely thank you for it and literally hold a party in your name. I love being shown where I am wrong. To be shown I was THAT wrong for THAT long..... I would laud you as my personal hero for as long as I draw breath.



Do you get it? I genuinely hope you do because I do not. This is one of the areas where I disagree with my fellow pro choice people. I genuinely do not get why rape is relevant. And I never have.

Let me explain why.

If like me you do not think a fetus has rights..... then rape is not relevant. Any woman can get an abortion at any time. Rape simply has nothing to do with the situation.

If however you do believe the fetus has rights, specifically and most importantly a right to life, then those advocating a rape caveat are advocating a position that the fetus should forfeit that right..... one of the most primary rights we hold dear as a species..... because of a crime it was neither the perpetrator of, nor the temporal victim of.

Which for me is a hard moral position to parse. How often have you come across situations where bystanders forfeit rights for being the witness of a crime? Let alone their most fundamental rights?

There are a lot of posts and threads on this forum on the subject of victim blaming. Like blaming the victims of rape for wearing the wrong clothes or similar.

The opinion of Abortion you espouse here for me goes beyond blaming the victim into the realm of blaming, and then condemning, the bystander.

And that is a moral position I simply can not parse. So I truely hope you can "get it" because you would be the first person ever who can explain it to me. And I genuinely want to understand it. Is it anything more than an empathy for the victim of rape? Or is there something deeper than that I am missing?

Thankfully since I do not see a 12-16 week old fetus as a moral agent..... I do not have to force rape to be congruent to my views on abortion.

A good reply to be fair, I don’t read all replies to the ramblings I post.
I don’t know that being sentient is all that matters, if it did then killing someone by smoke inhalation while they sleep would barely be wrong, if at all.
I think abortion is generally wrong because of how important life is, how wonderful having children is. I don’t think it’s a terrible sin or that abortion is murder, but it is a very poor decision.
I think mentioning ‘wants’ trivializes the issue, there is a world of difference between want and need.
You are right, empathy for the person raped is the only reason I think it is a good option in those circumstances.
But people having abortions because of ‘wants’ is crazy, In my opinion, and it is only my opinion which I don’t expect law to reflect, having an abortion for reasons other than health or rape is wrong.
I don’t see a fetus as being comparable to the leg of a table, it clearly isn’t, if it was miscarriages wouldn’t be devastating.
I kind of envy your certainty on the matter, I can see arguments on pro choice and pro life sides.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

A good reply to be fair, I don’t read all replies to the ramblings I post.

You have my sympathy. As a rule I always read back over my own after posting them. Looking for typos and what not. And it is a chore. What more users do not know.... is that for every post I post..... I delete 3 or 4 more just because I got sick of reading them in the post post check.

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

I don’t know that being sentient is all that matters

I think that is easy enough to respond to. But it requires me to respond with a question rather than an answer. So forgive me for that.... as I try never to rebut with a question when an answer will do.

But if nothing in the universe was sentient.... would anything "matter"?

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

, if it did then killing someone by smoke inhalation while they sleep would barely be wrong, if at all.

I understand your error here and it as much mine as yours as I leave a lot of people open to it when I should probably preempt it.

The FACULTY of sentience is important, even when it is not operational at the time. For example a murder is a murder whether you are awake or asleep or in a coma when I commit it.

A human of any age... on the way down the birth canal.... toddling..... choosing a college career.... or wasting time talking to an idiot in their old age with a person like me.... as an INSTANCE of human sentience. Even if they are in a coma.

A fetus is not. It has never been.

This distinction is important I think. If it is not, I want to hear why.

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

I think abortion is generally wrong because of how important life is

I do not think you beleive that is true. And I think if you think about it you will see why.

Given I have had this conversation 10000 times is it offensive to you that I might forward a prediction on how it MIGHT go?

Here it goes.....

Are you a vegetarian? if not then already your idea that LIFE is important is compromised. As too if you have ever used paper.... anti biotics..... incecticedes.... that I could list.

So the conversation becomes..... since I have had it many times before I hope you forgive me for putting words in your mouth....... that SOME life is important when others are not THAT important.

And then the conversation..... in my experience..... turns to WHY some is important and other is not. What are the attributes in fact that are required for it to become important?

Again I REALLY dont want to put words in your mouth.... this is just a demo on how this conversation usually goes to save us both some time.....

And then.... boring as it may seem... and in fact I bore myself at this point..... you eventually hit on a list of attributes that makes any give "life" important. And EVERY TIME...... it turns out.... that the attributes of note are PRECISELY the attributes the fetus does not have.

This is the point where the person I am talking to gets really angry.... or sometimes quite physically agressive.

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

I think mentioning ‘wants’ trivializes the issue, there is a world of difference between want and need.

As I said I partially agree with you here. I do not decry that word "wants" but I do not think it is the best choice either. I think what the word "wants" is trying to convey is that the abortion issue is a discussion about whether the well being of a sentient agent should be curtailed or in anyway mediated..... by the concerns of a non sentient entity.

"Wants" is a bad and simplistic word to convey that.... I give you that.... but it is not WRONG either. And given your calm and considered rhetoric so far.... I somewhat suspect you know that too. And I think the word you have to do now is not to reply to me.... but to reconcile your own emotive response to the word.... with your intellectual skill of knowing what the word means in this context.

And I think I have done all I can do to point you in the right direction there and the rest of the work is yours. And this was one of the more pleasurable exchanges on the subject I have ever had actually! But if you need me some more.... by all means respond! I am known for never letting a conversation go

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

I don’t see a fetus as being comparable to the leg of a table, it clearly isn’t, if it was miscarriages wouldn’t be devastating.

Everything is comparable to everything, if they are being compared on the RIGHT criteria. That is a motto I wish I could distil to people as a whole. As it is one I spend a terrible amount of time defending. After all a car is comparable to a mountain.... if the attribute you are comparing them with is the color grey.

The reason I compare a fetus to a table leg is deliberately and contrived to be emotive. But there is a reason for it. It is a valid comparison under the the narrative of moral and ethical concern. There is, in fact, no more reason to have moral and ethical concern for a fetus of 12 weeks IN ISOLATION than there is for a table leg or a rock.

I say that to troll the more extreme anti abortion people but I also say it to stimulate relevant debate. Because the moment you work out a reason why that assertion is wrong.... is the moment you will change my opinion of abortion.... and many other things..... instantly and irrevocably.

Im short my ENTIRE moral and ethical concern hinges on the well being of sentient agents. Given rocks, table legs, and 12 week old fetueses are NOT such agents....... I am open to having my axioms challanged in this regard.

And once again, at the risk of feeling like a lick up, responding to you has been more pleasurable than most of my posts on this topic. I hope it continues.

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

I kind of envy your certainty on the matter, I can see arguments on pro choice and pro life sides.

Certainty disgusts me. I subscribe to the scientific method.... which is based upon being constantly uncertain and seeking reasons to prove you are wrong..... rather than to prove you are right!

I am human. I am flawed. I am wrong about something on some subject somewhere. 100% sure of that! The reason I use forums such as this.... is that people like you and the populace in general.... are my intellectual slave zombies pressed to work in helping me find out where and why and how it is

That was a joke... but in seriousness we are ALL wrong about something. The reason I "waste" my time on forums is I genuinely believe them to be the best resource in finding out where my errors are. I do not beleive I will find them in my navel or my book shelves.

Sunny Disposition

SusieBlue wrote: »

Yes, the ‘wants’ of a living breathing citizen should be prioritized over a 12 week gestated pregnancy. Especially if that citizen is the one bearing the pregnancy.
She’s the one who will have the burden of responsiblity for the subsequent child, so whose ‘wants’ are more important than hers?
Are you saying society should have more of a say on the matter than her?
I don’t see whose wants, needs and feelings are more relevant than the woman actually carrying the baby.

No woman takes the matter abortion lightly. The fact that you are implying women will be getting them for lols or without proper thought is extremely offensive.
She has to carry the child, she has to raise the child, if she says she can’t do that you or I are in no position to insist otherwise.

Also, there are no ‘good’ or ‘bad’ abortions. You are a hypocrite if you are ok with it in some instances but not others. It’s either killing or it’s not.
Every woman has a reason that is personal to her and we should respect that.
We are not her judge and jury.

As for your last paragraph, I actually completely agree with you.
I fully believe every child should be loved and cherished like the gift that they are.
However, I’m not so self important as assume to speak for everyone when I say that, whereas that’s exactly what you’re doing with your blanket statements.

For some people, having a baby would be the worst possible thing that could ever happen them, for a variety of reasons. They would not agree with us that it’s life greatest gift.
You or I are in no position to force them to have a child they do not want, when we aren't the ones who have to live with the consequences.

The reason I brought up the contents of a womb was because the 8th amendment said that even if a woman was just 4 weeks pregnant, the zygote in her belly has an equal right to life as her.
The law didn’t care if she had cancer or a disability, if she was in a violent relationship, living in poverty or simply couldn’t cope with another baby.
The law said that zygote was equal.
That should never be the case unless the woman is agreeable and willing.
She is more important unless she chooses otherwise.
She is the priority unless she chooses to put her pregnancy first (which most women do anyway).

Your research is amazing, you asked all women and none of them took abortion lightly! Some women I know all my life seemed to take it fairly lightly, but now I know better.

Are you Titania McGrath? You have a bright future in gender studies anyway, might have a sideline arguing with pro life zealots online. Don’t let the ‘real’ world intrude on your views.

SusieBlue

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Your research is amazing, you asked all women and none of them took abortion lightly! Some women I know all my life seemed to take it fairly lightly, but now I know better.

Are you Titania McGrath? You have a bright future in gender studies anyway, might have a sideline arguing with pro life zealots online. Don’t let the ‘real’ world intrude on your views.

You’re the one assuming to speak for everyone when not everyone shares your views.
Views which impact actual people in the ‘real’ world.

Can’t say I’m shocked that your reply is full of sneering passive aggressive arrogance but it’s very telling that you didn’t bother to refute any of the points I made.

It’s a pity you didn’t put as much effort into addressing the points I made to you as you did making unfounded nasty assumptions about me but whatever, says more about you than me.
Knock yourself out hun.

Sunny Disposition

SusieBlue wrote: »

You’re the one assuming to speak for everyone when not everyone shares your views.
Views which impact actual people in the ‘real’ world.

Can’t say I’m shocked that your reply is full of sneering passive aggressive arrogance but it’s very telling that you didn’t bother to refute any of the points I made.

It’s a pity you didn’t put as much effort into addressing the points I made to you as you did making unfounded nasty assumptions about me but whatever, says more about you than me.
Knock yourself out hun.

😘

Church on Tuesday

Hardcharger wrote: »

I voted NO last year because I knew this would happen.

The parents murdered their own child. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever.

The doctors who killed the baby directly and the nurses who assisted and anyone else who works in the hospital involved are murderers.

Anyone who voted Yes last year and whooped and cheered like they won an All Ireland in those stupid black repeal jerseys is a murderer.

Simple as that.

You'd want to learn, and learn fairly quick for your own sake because it will stand to you later in life, that real life is rarely black and white.

Have a bit of cop on and step back and realise how difficult that decision was for all involved.

By all means have your opinion but let's not resort to cheap slurs and name calling.

bingbong500

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

The 8th amendment would have given a legal right to life to this poor defenceless innocent human life, and prevented his or her killing. Sad but true. All the right on lefty liberal 'woke' brigade : are you proud now?

I am, yes. I am very very glad that the foetus did not have any "right to life", and am proud we finally removed the horrific 8th amendment.

Thanks for asking

bingbong500

[QUOTE=Sunny Disposition;110429191 But having an abortion is a big deal, they should not be had lightly.

Having a child is one of life's greatest gifts, if not its greatest. The 'contents' of a womb are very, very important.[/QUOTE]

But its not always a big deal at all. The narrative that women must agonise and regret and torture themselves is just bull****. For an awful lot of women its just a thing they have to do, unpleasant but not a particularly difficult decision. Often not a decision at all.

A child is only one of lifes great gifts when you want one. When you don't, its no gift. It's a punishment. But at last we have become a civilised country where we don't try and make women have children they don't want.

political analyst

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/national-maternity-strategy-funding-for-new-elements-halted-1.3844919?mode=amp

Patient representative Róisín Molloy, a member of the National Maternity Strategy steering group, criticised the loss of ringfenced funding for the plan. “It is ironic that we are cutting money that should go towards providing a safe maternity system when we are spending so much more on birth injury claims to the State Claims Agency,” she said.

Ms Molloy, whose baby, Mark, died as a result of failings at Portlaoise hospital in 2012, said the money that had been intended to go on the maternity strategy was effectively being spent on abortion services since January this year.

“The only way to prevent further deaths and injuries to others is to properly fund the maternity strategy and make public servants accountable for their actions,” she said.

Jupiter Mulligan

Banned.

Igotadose

bingbong500 wrote: »

But its not always a big deal at all. The narrative that women must agonise and regret and torture themselves is just bull****. For an awful lot of women its just a thing they have to do, unpleasant but not a particularly difficult decision. Often not a decision at all.

A child is only one of lifes great gifts when you want one. When you don't, its no gift. It's a punishment. But at last we have become a civilised country where we don't try and make women have children they don't want.

And, the other lie that most women 'regret' their abortions is not true. In fact, shoutyourabortion.com has some good, meaningful stories there.

political analyst

According to the "Gript" Facebook page, the baby's parents fear that the case will be buried. Peadar Tóibín has criticised Leo and Simon and the Opposition for their silence on the case.

There's no indication as to what grounds the parents may have for legal action to force the government to have an independent investigation.

uptherebels

political analyst wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/national-maternity-strategy-funding-for-new-elements-halted-1.3844919?mode=amp

Do you understand what " effectively being spent on " means?

Jaster Rogue

bingbong500 wrote: »

A child is only one of lifes great gifts when you want one. When you don't, its no gift. It's a punishment. But at last we have become a civilised country where we don't try and make women have children they don't want.

Do you not see the irony in describing an unwanted child as a 'punishment', and then advocating the death (sorry I mean 'abortion', or 'termination' - we're not allowed say 'death' or 'killing') of that child as the solution? Isn't that a far worse punishment, for the child anyway?
The 'have become a civilized country' part is just the icing on the cake.

.......

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

Do you not see the irony in describing an unwanted child as a 'punishment', and then advocating the death (sorry I mean 'abortion', or 'termination' - we're not allowed say 'death' or 'killing') of that child as the solution? Isn't that a far worse punishment, for the child anyway?
The 'have become a civilized country' part is just the icing on the cake.

There is no child. A fetus is not a child.

SexBobomb

....... wrote: »

There is no child. A fetus is not a child.

This is a massive point of debate. Many would disagree with you tbf

.......

SexBobomb wrote: »

This is a massive point of debate. Many would disagree with you tbf

But I think its fair to say a majority of Irish people WOULD agree with me.

Considering the results of the referendum.

The Bishop Basher

....... wrote: »

But I think its fair to say a majority of Irish people WOULD agree with me.

Considering the results of the referendum.

I wouldn't say that's a given at all.

Many people, myself included, voted in favour of abortion despite holding grave reservations about the ethics involved because we believe people should be given the choice.

In reality though, none of us know for sure why anyone else voted the way they did.

.......

The Bishop Basher wrote: »

I wouldn't say that's a given at all.

Many people, myself included, voted in favour of abortion despite holding grave reservations about the ethics involved because we believe people should be given the choice.

In reality though, none of us know for sure why anyone else voted the way they did.

We will have to agree to disagree.

The prolifers pushed the agenda that a Yes vote was a yes to murdering children.

I dont think most people in the country voted to murder children. At all.

I think *most* people who voted can see the difference between a fetus and a child.

volchitsa

The Bishop Basher wrote: »

I wouldn't say that's a given at all.

Many people, myself included, voted in favour of abortion despite holding grave reservations about the ethics involved because we believe people should be given the choice.

In reality though, none of us know for sure why anyone else voted the way they did.

I think we can assume that whatever their reservations about the ethics of abortion, not many people can have voted to repeal the ban while believing that the choice they were giving people was about killing children.

Would people really vote to allow children to be killed? I think we can safely exclude that for all but the tiniest minority.

The Bishop Basher

volchitsa wrote: »

not many people can have voted to repeal the ban while believing that the choice they were giving people was about killing children.

I disagree. I am one and I know plenty of others.

If someone else wants to abort their child that their choice.

I voted for choice. I didn't vote for abortion.

The people who talk about murdering babies are adopting an extremist position and don't really add anything to the debate.

Thankfully most people are more considered and while none of us can ever really know, I suspect a significant majority hover somewhere around the middle.

ie. They had some reservations but voted in favour of choice.

volchitsa

The Bishop Basher wrote: »

I disagree. I am one and I know plenty of others.

If someone else wants to abort their child that their choice.

I voted for choice. I didn't vote for abortion.

The people who talk about murdering babies are adopting an extremist position and don't really add anything to the debate.

Thankfully most people are more considered and while none of us can ever really know, I suspect a significant majority hover somewhere around the middle.

ie. They had some reservations but voted in favour of choice.

So if you want to kill your toddler, or your teenager, you should have that choice? Really?

nozzferrahhtoo

SexBobomb wrote: »

This is a massive point of debate. Many would disagree with you tbf

Will they do it convincingly or even coherently though? Because aside from simply asserting the opposite claim I have yet to here the "debate" there.

Rather they just get over excited that it's tongue moves round, or they mistake words used in biological taxonomy for the same words used in philosophy.

So actual "debate" on the issue tends to be just shouting that it is a child not a fetus...... or just getting overly emotive about toes and tongues. An actual debate, just once, would be quite nice.

The Bishop Basher

volchitsa wrote: »

So if you want to kill your toddler, or your teenager, you should have that choice? Really?

Of course not.

You're equating a fetus with a toddler or teenager which is plainly nonsense.

That's a tactic normally applied by the no side.

.......

The Bishop Basher wrote: »

Of course not.

You're equating a fetus with a toddler or teenager which is plainly nonsense.

That's a tactic normally applied by the no side.

So there you go then - a fetus isnt a child.

The Bishop Basher

....... wrote: »

So there you go then - a fetus isnt a child.

You're entitled to hold that opinion but it is only that. Your opinion.

Life just isn't that black and white especially when discussing this topic.

Out of interest, when does a fetus become a baby in your opinion ?

Is it when the baby is born, just before it's born or some other time during the pregnancy ?

Genuine question..

.......

The Bishop Basher wrote: »

You're entitled to hold that opinion but it is only that. Your opinion.

Life just isn't that black and white especially when discussing this topic.

Out of interest, when does a fetus become a baby in your opinion ?

Is it when the baby is born, just before it's born or some other time during the pregnancy ?

Genuine question..

I have no idea and I dont think its relevant when a fetus becomes a baby tbh.

What is relevant is when we are dealing with an entity that is equal in moral terms to the woman that is carrying it. So when it possesses brain chemistry, consciousness etc...

I dont know exactly when a fetus possesses those characteristics either but I know that they definitely are NOT present at 12 weeks.

So when I weigh up the balance of rights between women and fetuses, women should always be afforded autonomy over their own bodies as long as the fetus inside is an entity without consciousness and sentience.